Elon Musk seems to enjoy awkward surprise appearances. Joining a far-right rally in London via livestream, he demanded the “dissolution” of the British parliament, falsely linked immigration to violence, and warned that the only option for protesters was to “fight back” or “die”.

He did similar in January 2025 when he joined a campaign event of the German far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD). Again over video he told supporters that “the German people are really an ancient nation” and the AfD is “the best hope for the future of Germany”.

It appears that the currently second-richest person in the world has become a mascot for the European far-right. In 2022, Musk bought one of the major social media platforms, then Twitter, to promote “free speech”. He stepped right into the ongoing “culture war” that is currently polarising US politics and finding traction across Europe. This makes him a problem for democratic politics.

The combination of massive wealth, far-right ideology and power over a large share of public discourse is a recurrent issue for democracy in general, but its negative effects have become even more prevalent in the age of social media. Two aspects are of particular importance here: social media companies’ monetising of user data and a dependence of democratic politics on platform discourse.

Social media runs on an advertisement-based revenue model. Every click or lingering over a post produces data and metadata which are a lucrative resource. Social media companies make a lion’s share of their revenue from charging advertisers to show ads to specific users based on such data. Some of us might remember Mark Zuckerberg replying “Senator, we run ads” when asked during testimony before the US Senate in 2018 how he made money without charging users for his services.

Importantly, advertisers do not only come in the form of clothing brands, restaurant chains and protein shakes. Political parties, governments, think-tanks, and foundations have all paid for ads on social media.

Studies show that social media has contributed to political polarisation during crucial political moments such as Brexit. It also harms democratic discourse when it facilitates online abuse that excludes already minoritised groups from democratic debate. Too often, such abuse is directed at minority women and girls as well as LGBTQ+ people.

Meta has followed X’s turn towards a right-leaning interpretation of “free speech”. It has abolished its third party fact-checking programme, widely credited with helping to manage disinformation.

Meanwhile, politicians across Europe struggle to decide what to do about Musk’s destabilising comments. Keep in mind that governments are doing (or thinking about doing) business with big tech leaders. This situation is politically complex, to say the least, because Musk and others, while being outspoken about their annoyance with aspects of democracy, are also at the forefront of developing the AI technologies many nations are relying on in their hope for economic growth.

This means that Musk has cracked the code for success in capitalist democracies: he makes the headlines with extreme statements, allows debates to unfold “freely” on his platform, and makes some of his money from the generated data.

This situation has created a strange relationship between democratic politics and social media leaders. For people like Musk, there is almost an economic incentive to engage in politics, riling up people and pressuring governments. He is both a business leader and a political actor.

“Free speech” regulations on social media platforms and their leaders’ political stances are increasingly at odds with democratic guidelines. Democracies need to have a more focused debate about how to minimise this incentive structure for destabilising politics.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Verena K. Brändle, University of Birmingham

Read more:

Verena K. Brändle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.