In the weeks following the November 2020 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama warned of a looming “epistemological crisis” in America—a warning that seems increasingly prescient as Donald Trump gears up for a potential White House return. Obama’s concern highlighted the dangers of a fragmented media landscape, where segments of society consume conflicting streams of information, lacking a shared factual basis. His worry was that without common truths, the exchange of ideas would falter, threatening democratic principles.
The potential risks aren’t confined to American democracy alone. The spread of misinformation and chaotic digital communication has shaken politics in nations where elections are free. This has led to a breakdown in political discussion and once-common consensual standards, shaking the very core of pluralistic societies.
What’s concerning about Trump’s upcoming return is not just his disregard for legal norms, but the fact that such attitudes do not deter a massive support base. Understanding this support involves considering dissatisfaction with the current administration, interwoven with broader economic and cultural issues.
A crucial part of this democracy crisis stems from the role of digital media. Elon Musk, the billionaire at the helm of the social platform X, has openly backed Trump’s campaign, influencing U.K. politics by targeting the prime minister and supporting extreme right-wing voices, all while allowing harmful rhetoric to circulate unchecked on his platform.
Misinformation’s impact on politics through unruly digital spaces is well-documented. Back in 2018, Facebook (now Meta) confessed to its platform contributing to the violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya population two years prior.
Turning our attention to controlling tech giants, it’s clear that while Meta has adjusted its policies and algorithms since then, their drive to boost user engagement fuels radicalization and undermines responsible content curation. It’s evident these tech behemoths, through either their business models or a thirst for power, need external regulation; their influence rivals that of some nations.
The debate around this regulatory need splits into two. One side points out the challenges any single government would face trying to control such a vast, borderless industry. The other side argues against regulating information, fearing that it could lead to censorship, even if such censorship originates with good intentions.
Skepticism about governmental control over what gets published is understandable, yet no major jurisdiction permits content deemed dangerous to public safety. Even the most liberal countries prohibit extreme content like violent propaganda or incitement to terrorism.
Elon Musk may label himself a “free speech absolutist,” yet his platform, X, does not function as an unbiased space. It subtly favors far-right voices while opposing what he calls “cancel culture” on the left, all the while being intolerant of criticism towards his own views.
Both ends of the political spectrum exhibit traits of censorship and intimidation, but these behaviors shouldn’t be confused with the more significant issues of threats, propaganda, and disinformation. Some of this harmful content is spread by authoritarian regimes aiming to destabilize societies by deepening social divides and making governance difficult. Democratic leaders must protect against these deliberate disruptions.
The global nature of this digital challenge requires urgent and coordinated regulation, as demonstrated by the U.K.’s Online Safety Act passed last year. Although this law has parts that are still being fine-tuned, it shows that legislators can hold digital companies accountable for harmful content.
Creating such safeguards to be practical, rights-respecting, but also people-protective is a tough task, particularly against a strong tech lobbying force. Collaborating with other regions, perhaps through the EU, enhances this endeavor, considering Trump is an unlikely partner here.
Over the years, the digital arena has evolved significantly. It offers a vital space for free idea exchange but is also a commercial territory dominated by massive entities. While it’s a common good, its misuse poses threats. Thus, advocating for a regulated digital environment is paramount, not from a standpoint of censorship, but from the recognition that digital platforms are now as vital as roads or clean water to democracy.
These discussions are more than theoretical; they’re increasingly urgent. Without action, Obama’s vision of a fractured marketplace for ideas could very well manifest into reality, harming democracy in profound ways.
