Summary
Elon Musk livestreamed a conversation with Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, on his platform X, endorsing her and urging support for the AfD ahead of Germany’s February 23 election.
The livestream, which drew over 200,000 viewers, raised concerns across Europe about Musk’s influence in foreign politics.
AfD, under observation for extremism, has gained popularity amid discontent with Chancellor Scholz’s government.
Musk’s promotion of Weidel and controversial remarks on other European issues are being monitored for violations of the EU’s Digital Services Act.
No, I mean they have never had a problem limiting Nazi speech before.
Quite contrary, we have a big problem censoring Nazi speech.
We have some very specific rules when something can be censored and when it can’t - and the far right has quite some training in “just not saying that, maybe only implicating it a little”.
So any legal action outlawing then needs to rest on really solid legal basis or it will fail. Such a failure would be the propaganda the right wishes for.
Consequently they are always just shy of openly saying things but implying them. Like having election posters where their politicians can say “No we’re not showing a Hitler salute in that image, we were just miming a roof of a house over a bunch of kids”
Sometimes a single politician gets caught with doing something too far, but then (of course) the whole party acts like they are shocked.
Getting rid of this shit is not easy, unfortunately. We can’t censor what we don’t like willy nilly.
Getting rid of a platform who’s owner is trying to influence your elections even though he isn’t even a citizen is not “willy nilly” by any means.
I personally absolutely agree of getting rid of that shit. I just said there are big hurdles, and you need to do so in a very organized and based on proof way.
You can’t just outlaw them because you don’t like them, that doesn’t work. Germany having laws against hate speech doesn’t mean there’s not also a law about freedom of expression in the Grundgesetz.
You need to prove them to be against democracy in a watertight way. That’s what I mean with not willy-nilly.
Or as I read it once: Democracy implicitly protects its enemies.
I’d like to just clarify a point which I think @[email protected] is making as well.
My concern about censorship is not based on “fairness” or being sympathetic to voices I disagree with. I’m strictly speaking about effectiveness.
Creating rules about what ideas aren’t allowed to be expressed has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses that have to be understood in order for this tool to be used effectively.
The strength is that it can slow dissemination of dangerous ideas. Restrictions on certain types of speech can be very effective for that. The weakness is that it cannot eliminate the infectiousness of an idea. Additionaly: suppressed ideas which have appeal may spread widely without opponents knowing about it, and opponents of these ideas may not develop counter-messaging that diminishes the appeals of these ideas. Lastly, restrictions on speech can create an evolutionary pressure on words and ideas to specifically find the weaknesses in the restrictions. A ban on saying certain words inherently creates a list of things you can say instead.
Taken altogether, prohibitions on speech or ideas are a lot like antibiotics. They’re very powerful and effective, but they lose their efficacy with use. And overusing them can actually lead to a complete breakdown in their efficacy. So they must be used in concert with a wide array of ecosystem health measures to limit their need.
You might say ‘Why worry? They’ve worked so far.’ But if you do, that over reliance can lead to a catastrophic failure.