Elon Musk’s X ownership amplifies the far-right agenda in Britain and beyond

Embed from Getty Images

Since billionaire Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, the platform has become a stage for amplifying far-right views, sparking widespread concern across the political landscape. Musk is far from a free-speech absolutist. He frequently bans accounts because they criticise him and praises authoritarian leaders. Musk’s interventions, both direct and through the accounts he boosts (and his alt-account he uses to praise himself), have elevated controversial far-right groups.

The troubling trajectory Musk has steered Twitter, now X, is emblematic of the modern far-right’s use of digital platforms to reshape public opinion. By retweeting content linked to neo-Nazi-aligned groups, Musk has inadvertently or deliberately become a central figure in legitimising fringe ideologies. In Britain, this has reignited discussions about historical failures of state institutions while intertwining these failures with racially charged narratives, particularly around Muslim communities.

Musk’s influence on British political discourse

Musk’s online rampages have implications for British politics. Through X, Musk has shone a spotlight on sensitive issues that had previously simmered in the background. For instance, his attention to the Rotherham and Rochdale cases coincided with Labour leader Keir Starmer’s attempts to focus the public’s attention on crises like the state of the NHS, perhaps as an attempt by those influencing Musk (potentially Cummings) to prevent NHS reform. Regardless, the timing and Musk’s vast influence have created politically charged distractions, forcing Starmer to address these attacks head-on.

Starmer’s recent press conference demonstrated the balancing act required to counter Musk’s provocations. The Starmer correctly acknowledged the horrors of the abuse and outlined the steps he took during his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions to reopen investigations. But Starmer was also careful not to validate calls for a new national inquiry, defending the inquiries that have already been conducted. The independent inquiries also back up Starmer’s press release. None of the reports criticise Starmer nor did Starmer suggest that perpetrators shouldn’t be prosecuted. It was quite the opposite, he revised the guidance on child sexual abuse to make future prosecutions easier. One of the reports stated: “Mr Starmer has striven to improve the treatment of victims of sexual assault within the criminal justice system throughout his term as Director of Public Prosecution (DPP).”

These scandals expose failings at multiple levels of British society. Police disregarded victims’ testimonies, social services’ warnings went unheeded, and the CPS started by labelling the young girls as unreliable witnesses (this decision was overturned later by Nazir Afzal in 2011 after being appointed by Starmer), allowing abuse to persist unchecked for years. Yet Musk’s focus has been less on addressing these institutional failures and more on stoking racially charged discourse around these cases. His tweets, often inflammatory, have revitalised a narrative popular among the far right—one that claims Britain is under siege by Muslim communities. The reason we know about these failures is that we already seen a series of reports and inquiries. These reports had many recommendations that the previous government largely ignored, but Labour are starting to implement them.

Musk has also supported the release of Tommy Robinson, leading to a fallout with Nigel Farage. Musk also supports a US invasion of the UK. This is not only encouraging war between two democratic states and allies but also war between two NATO nuclear powers. You’d think the British press would be upset that an unelected foreign oligarch was calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government, but no. In fact a lot of newspapers and commentators are openly supporting the idea.

Why is Musk like this?

Once primarily known as a entrepreneur focused on technology and innovation, Musk now channels his energy into cultural and political battles, often through reactionary tweets. People who knew Musk in earlier in his life have remarked on what appears to be a profound personality shift due in part to his heavy use of ketamine and other drugs. Some attribute this transformation to personal factors, such as his strained relationship with his transgender daughter, which he has referenced as a trigger for his anti-“woke” crusade.

X as a political weapon

Under Musk, X has transformed into a uniquely potent weapon for cultural and political warfare. Despite being much smaller than Facebook or YouTube, X’s influence lies in its demographic: journalists and politicians.

Musk shapes the broader media landscape and political priorities by steering conversations on this platform. This dynamic explains how narratives Musk amplifies often transition into mainstream discussions, as was evident with the sudden resurgence of focus on the Rotherham and Rochdale scandals. His actions reveal the dangerous potential of an immensely powerful individual shaping narratives based on personal biases and ideological inclinations.

Whether Musk’s influence ultimately wanes or intensifies, the damage caused by his platform’s weaponisation of far-right extremism underscores the urgent need for more robust oversight of digital platforms, a need even more pressing now that Meta is also removing fact-checkers and will start pushing more political content.

* Jack Wilkin is a PhD student at the University of Exeter researching past environmental change around the island of South Georgia. He is a registered supporter of the Lib Dems.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

13 Comments

  • Craig Levene 14th Jan '25 - 7:01pm

    Sarah Campion, Dan Carden , Andy Burnham. Have all called for a further enquiry, & rightly so. Reading Dan’s statement, it certainly resonates. These horrific scandals, are finally getting the prominence they deserve.

  • Alex Hosking 15th Jan '25 - 1:04am

    TBF, I don’t think either side is great on free speech these days, so many people don’t get it and just resort to ad hominem. It would be good if we as a part became the more centre-left calls for free speech.

  • Steve Trevethan 15th Jan '25 - 8:49am

    Might it help if “our” main stream media were (more) objective, analytical and incisive in the vital function as defenders and promoters of a decent, equitable society and less into promoting, indirectly and directly, those who seek selfish influence, power and publicity?

  • Alex Macfie 15th Jan '25 - 9:25am

    @Craig Levene: There may or may not be a case for another public inquiry but more urgent is to implement the recommendation for the first one. And we should not be taking any lectures about protection of women and girls from someone like Musk, given his personal behaviour and choice of friends and associates. Not only that but he makes the case for it for all the wrong reasons. Musk gives the impression that there had never been a previous inquiry and that he was the first person to raise awareness of the issue of grooming. That is a straightforward lie.

  • Nonconformistradical 15th Jan '25 - 9:32am

    I agree with Alex Macfie (15 Jan 9:25 am)

  • Craig Levene 15th Jan '25 - 2:36pm

    Alex. We all want to see the implementation of the Jay report. What many are calling for, & rightly so, is that those previous reports highlighted issues in regards to those in authority made decisions that were not based on the welfare of those children & in doing so prolonging that abuse. Those individuals need to answer for their decisions. A public enquiry can compel them to appear and account for their actions. And in all honesty, if it wasn’t for the latest outrage generated on Twitter, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Thankfully, those on the left like Dan & Sarah have articulated very strong arguments along the same lines.

  • Nonconformistradical 15th Jan '25 - 5:33pm

    @Craig Levene
    “We all want to see the implementation of the Jay report.”
    Yes. NOW. That is number 1 priority.

    If you want another enquiry aimed at holding people to account then that must not delay implementation of the Jay report. It must not kick the report into the long grass.

  • Alex Macfie 15th Jan '25 - 5:44pm

    @Craig Levene: The grooming gang scandal was already widely known about and discussed before M*sk stuck his oar in. There is even a TV docu-drama about it (Three Girls). Indeed if it had not been in the public arena, then M*sk would not have found out about the issue and would not have started the recent bandwagon. His intervention has added only noise to the debate. Let’s not pretend he exposed anything; all he did was read something about it and decided to use it to advance his own agenda (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is nothing to do with the welfare of the victims of the scandal).
    The Labour government had already started implementing the Jay report recommendations before M*sk’s intervention. This is something the previous Tory government dragged its feet on. So seeing Tory shadow front-benchers jump on the M*sk “new inquiry” bandwagon over an issue in which they showed little interest while in government really sticks in the throat.

    And of course Starmer himself was instrumental in changing the CPS approach to prosecution of grooming gangs when he was DPP. The latest Private Eye (#1640) has an article naming many of the people who were instrumental in bringing the scandal to public attention since 2004. Neither M*sk nor Tommy Ten-names had anything to do with it.

  • Craig Levene 15th Jan '25 - 7:36pm

    Alex . Labour only commited itself to the Jay report after the latest anger at the refusal from Jess Philips in regards to Oldham’s local authority request for an inquiry. As senior figures within that council allegedly made decisions that prolonged that horrific abuse.
    Similar allegations were made in each local inquiry we’ve had . Some labour MPs are now calling for those individuals to answer for their decisions in a full public inquiry. Dan Carden’s & Sarah Champion statements clearly outlines
    this..Labour made no firm commitment prior to all this.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/08/uk-government-could-miss-chance-to-protect-children-says-ex-inquiry-chair

  • David Garlick 15th Jan '25 - 9:12pm

    Don’t leave ‘X’. Use it to tell it as it truly is, challenge with the facts whenever possible and point out any outright lies and misinformation.
    Fight on what ever battle ground available. Their turf is the best place to be active.

    It will bring out the trolls so only do it if you can cope with abuse…

  • Alex Macfie 16th Jan '25 - 8:59am

    @Craig Levene: It was a Labour manifesto commitment. Any new inquiry would be separate from that of Alexis Jay. Labour was already starting to implement the Jay report recommendations, and any public statement made after the recent upsurge of interest in the scandal was mainly to affirm what the government was doing anyway. M*sk’s interventions (including the vile personal attacks on Jess Phillips) did not do anything to change government policy (which was already set), although they certainly did make sensible debate on the issue more difficult.

  • Craig Levene 16th Jan '25 - 10:32am

    Alex. In Professor Jay’s interview with the Guardian in November 2024 , she clearly states she was pressing Government ministers to commit to the reports findings. Even so this still leaves the issue of what Oldham’s authority raised which is that local authorities cannot deal with inquiries where senior figures have been implicated in a serious failing of duty. These failings featured strongly in the previous localised inquiries. The scale and horrific nature of the abuse, & those individuals who’ve allegedly failed in a duty of care to those children, must be held accountable for their actions.

  • @Craig Levene: Of course she was, that’s what you’d expect her to be doing. Alexis Jay may well have influenced government policy and actions (although this may be mainly in terms of priority given to the issue), but M*sk’s intervention had absolutely no meaningful impact except to poison the debate.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Steve Trevethan
    Might it be more accurate to describe thé referred to group as the “Neo-Liberal elite”? As Michael Hudson points out, there are three basic power groups...
  • Jack Nicholls
    I would accept the basic thrust of this argument but for one thing - the problematic creed you identify is not liberalism, though I agree it gets mislabelled as...
  • nigel hunter
    If we have to turn away from US protection those 2 aircraft carriers MUST be fully active as an umbrella for all of Europe.The effort to make them fully service...
  • Christopher Haigh
    @SimonR, quite agree with you. China is undemocratic and a massive polluter with its obsession with coal mining. Vince however, seems to be obsessed with tradin...
  • Anthony Acton
    Thank you Vince Cable for this. The Brexit debate was always about a strategic choice between Europe and the USA. We chose USA. What a disaster. Only the LDs h...