Live

Over the past year, X owner Elon Musk has extensively commented on European politics, including endorsing Alternative for Germany in the February Bundestag elections and defending Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini against accusations of migrant kidnapping when he was Minister of the Interior in Giuseppe Conte’s government.

Musk also criticised the annulment of the first round of the Romanian presidential elections due to suspicions about Kremlin-backed disinformation campaigns supporting the vote’s winner.

Given this interference, worries have surfaced about the potential manipulation of X’s algorithms to boost content from candidates or parties favored by Musk, which has fueled a discussion on digital platforms’ wider influence on European democracies and how the European Commission might manage it.

Free speech vs. algorithmic influence

The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) is designed to ensure safer, more transparent online spaces – especially on large platforms like X, Meta (Facebook, Instagram), or TikTok. But the law does not allow outright censorship or banning platforms just because their owners express political opinions.

In fact, platform owners – like any citizen – have the right to free speech, including endorsing political candidates. That’s why, after a much-discussedX-service conversation between Elon Musk and AfD co-chair Alice Weidel, the European Commission announced that the interview did not violate the DSA – even though Musk openly urged it to vote for Alternative for Germany.

Yet, what the DSA forbids is the manipulation of algorithms to artificially boost or hinder political content. Additionally, platforms have a responsibility to assess and reduce the risk of their algorithms impacting elections.

Could the EU actually ban a platform like X?

Technically, yes – but only in extreme cases. The European Commission can fine platforms up to 6% of their global annual revenue for violating the DSA. It can also place platforms under enhanced monitoring and impose daily penalties of up to 5% of daily turnover for failure to comply with EU rules.

But a full suspension or ban would only be considered if:

  • The platform continues to violate the DSA despite fines,
  • The violations result in serious harm to users,
  • And the content leads to criminal offenses posing risks to life or public safety.

Even then, the European Commission would need to go through a formal procedure to temporarily suspend a platform’s operation in the EU.

Are the current rules enough?

Some EU governments aren’t so sure. As political campaigns heat up across the bloc, concerns are growing about whether current rules go far enough to protect democratic processes.

Germany’s outgoing digital affairs minister signalled earlier this year that Olaf Scholz’s  government was ready to propose stricter legislation if it was needed. “We won’t allow our democracy to be undermined by platform algorithms,” he stated, calling for continued vigilance at the EU level. It is an open question whether the stance of the new cabinet under Friedrich Merz will be equally stringent.

Digital ministers in other EU countries have echoed the need for closer cooperation between governments and social media companies, especially in spotting and removing disinformation quickly.

What comes next?

While banning a platform like X across the EU is highly unlikely, increased regulation and monitoring are on the horizon. The EU aims to strike a balance between protecting democratic elections and preserving fundamental rights, including freedom of expression.

One thing is clear: as tech billionaires gain more influence over public discourse, the pressure on EU institutions to act decisively – and responsibly – is growing.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article