By John Q. Hosedrinker 
MEPs and several EU governments criticize the European Commission’s slow enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA), citing Elon Musk’s actions as a prime example. Concerns center on Musk’s apparent algorithmic manipulation to boost his own tweets, potentially violating the DSA’s transparency requirements and influencing upcoming German elections through his promotion of the AfD. The Commission’s ongoing investigation into X’s DSA compliance is deemed too slow, with calls for faster action to prevent the misuse of platforms and protect democratic processes. Failure to effectively enforce the DSA could result in significant fines for non-compliant companies or even an EU ban.
Read the original article here
The EU Commission faces mounting pressure to address Elon Musk’s alleged interference in European elections. Concerns are swirling around the potential manipulation of the X platform, formerly known as Twitter, to influence voting outcomes. The sheer scale of the alleged manipulation is alarming, with some questioning the authenticity of X’s reported user base. Claims of artificially inflated follower counts to bolster Musk’s image, potentially at his own request, have surfaced, raising serious questions about transparency and the integrity of the platform.
This alleged manipulation goes beyond mere optics; it raises the specter of deliberate interference in democratic processes. The comparison to previous instances of electoral interference further strengthens this concern. The urgency to act is amplified by the widespread perception that Musk is actively seeking to wield influence in various countries, leading some to declare him an “enemy” of their nation.
Proposals for a complete ban of X within the EU are gaining traction, fueled by growing frustration over the perceived lack of control and accountability. There’s a widespread belief that only a ban will effectively curtail Musk’s influence and prevent further manipulation. Coupled with the ban, substantial tariffs on Tesla vehicles are also being proposed as a means of pressuring the company and its CEO. The intent behind such measures is clear: to send a strong message that such actions will not be tolerated within the EU’s borders.
The debate extends beyond a simple ban, however. Many are calling for broader regulatory reform within the digital sphere. Specific suggestions include mandating real-time, independent monitoring of social media algorithms or even making those algorithms open source. This move would promote transparency and accountability, potentially preventing similar scenarios in the future. The success of India’s approach, banning TikTok and other Chinese apps, is cited as a viable model to emulate.
The severity of the situation is underscored by the belief that Musk’s actions, if left unchecked, could embolden other powerful individuals and entities to similarly interfere in democratic processes. The call to action intensifies as it is argued that such interference is not limited to the EU; the US elections, particularly the recent one, could have been easily influenced if Musk acted with the same level of impunity.
The argument for action isn’t solely based on speculation. Anecdotal evidence points to a significant decline in X’s active users, suggesting that the platform’s massive claimed user base may be significantly overstated, further bolstering the case for manipulation. The perceived lack of genuine engagement and the proliferation of bot accounts add to the growing sense of distrust and the need for swift action.
Some even see a link between X and the laundering of Russian money through fabricated bot accounts, emphasizing the far-reaching consequences of Musk’s actions. This sentiment is further heightened by the perceived right-wing bias of the platform, prompting a response from those who feel their voices are being suppressed or manipulated. The resulting frustration fuels the calls for more drastic measures.
The call to action is becoming louder, and people are increasingly frustrated by a perception that the current regulatory framework is inadequate to address Musk’s influence. The suggestion to impose fines based on Musk’s net worth reflects the desire for truly impactful penalties. It’s a reaction to the belief that any less significant fine would be deemed a mere cost of doing business for someone of his wealth.
Calls for stronger regulatory action are not merely limited to banning X; they extend to a broader condemnation of the alleged interference and a forceful assertion of the EU’s sovereignty. The argument is that allowing such blatant hostility to go unchallenged sets a dangerous precedent. The overarching message is clear: oligarchs and their associates will not be permitted to undermine democratic institutions or manipulate public discourse within the EU. The situation requires a resolute response, preventing further erosion of trust in democratic processes and ensuring the integrity of future elections.