Listen to the article
Social Media Becomes Battleground for Democracy Amid Russian Influence and Platform Politics
Russian influence operations and the political weaponization of major social media platforms have sparked urgent debates across Europe about protecting democratic discourse online. Recent events, particularly during Romania’s presidential election, have highlighted the growing threat of digital manipulation in democratic processes.
Romania’s 2023 presidential contest emerged as a striking case study in social media manipulation. A coordinated wave of disinformation, primarily distributed through TikTok and Telegram, dramatically boosted previously unknown far-right, pro-Kremlin candidate Călin Georgescu in the polls. Intelligence officials later confirmed this operation aligned with Russia’s broader strategy of using social media to influence foreign elections and undermine support for Ukraine.
“When algorithms are controlled by companies that do not share our European values, the platforms behind them can quickly become effective tools of propaganda,” warned Tiemo Wölken, a German MEP affiliated with the Social Democrats. “This is no longer just a fringe issue, but a matter that strikes at the very heart of the future of our democracy.”
The transformation of Twitter into X under Elon Musk’s ownership has particularly alarmed European officials. Since acquiring the platform for $44 billion in 2022, Musk has been accused of systematically reshaping it for political influence despite initial promises of neutrality. Engagement metrics show disproportionate amplification of Musk’s personal account and Republican-aligned content, particularly during the 2024 US presidential election cycle.
In Germany, concerns have intensified over Musk’s open support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Analysts note that X’s algorithms have boosted AfD messaging ahead of the 2025 German federal elections, potentially influencing the political landscape in Europe’s largest economy.
The European Union has responded with regulatory frameworks including the Digital Services Act (DSA), which targets illegal content and demands platform transparency, and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), designed to curb the power of digital gatekeepers. However, implementation has proven challenging.
According to Wölken, the European Commission lacks sufficient resources to effectively enforce these regulations. “Since Donald Trump’s election as U.S. President, the Commission seems hesitant to conclude its long-running investigations into the platform X with concrete consequences,” he noted.
This enforcement gap is evident in the modest penalties imposed so far. While Apple and Meta have faced fines of €500 million and €200 million respectively under the DMA, critics argue these amounts are negligible compared to the tech giants’ massive revenues. Meanwhile, despite evidence suggesting X has violated DSA provisions by amplifying far-right content, the platform has yet to face significant penalties.
As regulatory challenges mount, some European voices are calling for the creation of a pan-European social media alternative. However, Wölken cautions against mandating such a platform: “Ultimately, this has to happen organically; a platform will only be successful if it is also attractive to users.” He believes politics should instead focus on creating a unified European framework for companies interested in establishing alternative social networks.
One promising initiative is the German “Save Social” movement, launched in February as an alliance of approximately 100 individuals and a dozen organizations. Rather than building a single European platform, Save Social aims to strengthen existing decentralized networks built on open protocols, such as the German platform Mastodon.
“It’s about building a network of interconnected, interoperable services that people can use and where they find their needs,” explained Björn Staschen, co-founder of Save Social.
The primary challenge for these alternatives is user adoption. “Only a specific group moves to alternative platforms for political reasons. Most people will only make the move when the platforms meet their needs,” Staschen noted. Save Social advocates for public institutions and broadcasters to publish content not just on major platforms but also on alternatives like Mastodon to increase their visibility and appeal.
Svea Windwehr, co-chair of the nonprofit D64 – Center for Digital Progress, emphasized that content serves as a critical pull factor: “The more interesting personalities and institutions move to a platform, the more people will follow.”
Beyond content, these platforms must improve user experience and secure sustainable funding. “When it comes to the question of who maintains and pays for open source technology, we do have a funding issue in Europe,” Windwehr acknowledged.
As the battle for social media’s democratic future intensifies, European initiatives face an uphill struggle against tech giants’ overwhelming resources. “As long as Big Tech platforms can use their privileges, there will be no chance for anything else,” concluded Staschen, highlighting the fundamental imbalance at the heart of this digital contest.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
11 Comments
Developing homegrown social media platforms seems like a sensible move, but the challenge will be making them appealing enough to gain widespread user adoption. The EU will need to carefully consider the user experience and feature set to compete with global tech giants.
The potential for European social media platforms to counter foreign interference is intriguing, but I wonder if the EU can truly create something that can rival the global tech giants in terms of user experience and network effects. It’s an ambitious goal, but worth exploring.
It’s good to see the EU taking proactive steps to address the risks of social media manipulation in democratic processes. Fostering more locally-controlled platforms could be an important part of the solution, but execution will be key.
Absolutely. The EU will need to strike the right balance between protecting democratic values and enabling open dialogue on these new platforms.
The case study of Russia’s disinformation tactics in Romania’s election is quite alarming. It highlights how social media can be weaponized to undermine the democratic process. Developing robust EU-based platforms seems like a prudent move.
Absolutely, the threat of foreign interference in elections via social media is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.
I wonder what specific measures the EU might consider to ensure their homegrown social media platforms uphold European democratic principles and resist manipulation efforts. Transparency around algorithms and content moderation policies could be a good starting point.
That’s a great question. Regulatory oversight and strict data privacy/security standards will likely be key to building public trust in any new EU-based social media options.
Interesting to see the EU exploring more locally developed social media options. With foreign influence campaigns a growing concern, having platforms that align with European values could help safeguard democratic discourse online.
While the idea of ‘Made in the EU’ social media is intriguing, I hope they can find a balance between protecting European values and allowing for vibrant, open discourse. Stifling free speech under the guise of combating disinformation could backfire.
That’s an excellent point. Maintaining a healthy democratic dialogue online will be crucial, even as the EU works to counter malicious foreign influence campaigns.