Now let us address the elephant in the room – yes, HE won the election last week, and unless you’ve been living under a seismic rock, the chances are you already know. Trump’s journey to the White House has been one spattered with criminal convictions (34 to be precise), assassination attempts and well, the CEO of X (formerly Twitter) himself and yesterday, it was announced that he would have a place right beside Trump.
Donald Trump confirmed Elon Musk will co-lead the new department of government efficiency, the appointment fulfils a promise Mr Trump made to the tech billionaire after he endorsed him in the race for the White House and poured more than $119m (£92m) into canvassing for him in the seven battleground states. It’s quite the achievement and has led to a lot of interesting discussion surrounding a timeline and life story that reads like a science fiction novel from the 50s: launching electric cars into the mainstream, colonising Mars, developing neural interfaces, and even acquiring a major social media platform.
But the latest twist – Musk’s move into politics, culminating in a position in the White House – is rewriting the playbook on the relationship between tech giants, social media, and government. We are heading into a possible future where social media’s role in politics is reshaping the traditional pathways of influence and governance, creating a shift that goes far beyond Elon Musk or any single figure. It signifies a broader change in the way power is likely accessed and then exercised, where those who control digital platforms hold a new kind of influence—one that can directly shape public opinion, redefine political norms, and even impact election outcomes.
So needless to say, we’re sorry Asimov, I’m pretty sure you warned us about all this already…but how did we get here? And what exactly does it mean?
Social Media as a Direct Channel to the Public
Traditionally, politicians have relied on established institutions—such as the press, political parties, and broadcast networks—to communicate with the public and gain support. These channels acted as intermediaries, interpreting messages, providing context, and in many cases, fact-checking claims. Now, with the rise of social media, politicians and influential figures can bypass these traditional media “gatekeepers” and connect directly with the public. In this direct-to-public model, a politician’s message isn’t filtered, challenged, or reframed by a third party; it reaches the audience exactly as the sender intends, instantly and widely.
This ability to communicate directly and at scale is unprecedented and brings both opportunities and risks.
On one hand, it can foster greater democratic engagement, allowing politicians to reach and connect with voters who may have been otherwise overlooked by traditional media. On the other hand, this lack of mediation can allow misinformation, sensationalism, and emotionally charged content to spread unchecked, potentially distorting public perception and polarising communities.
Such has arguably happened over on X of late, and Elon Musk has ensured it.
It’s no secret that social media rewards engagement, positive or negative. And it’s also no secret that it shows you more of what you want to see to keep you there, which can lead to polarisation. Being exposed to differing points of view is important for democracy and being open to discussion no matter which side of a fence you sit is too, as long as no one is getting hurt in the process. Social media, and X in particular however, is beginning to no longer reward this, and it’s an interesting forethought going into the next few years.
The Rise of Digital Public Squares as Power Centres
Social media platforms like X, Facebook, and Instagram function as digital “public squares,” where millions gather to share, debate, and consume information. In essence, these platforms are the new town halls, places where public discourse occurs. But unlike physical spaces governed by democratic principles, these digital spaces are privately owned and operated, often by individuals or companies whose primary allegiance is to shareholders, not the public. This raises important questions about transparency, accountability, and control.
As Musk’s path to power illustrates, control over one of these digital public squares brings with it a unique form of influence. By owning and shaping a platform, a person or entity can determine what content gets promoted, suppressed, or removed entirely. They can set the rules of engagement, decide who gets to participate in the conversation, and prioritise certain narratives over others. This centralised control over public discourse would be unthinkable in a traditional democracy, yet it has become an increasingly powerful tool in the hands of a few private individuals and corporations.
This power dynamic has the potential to shape not only public opinion but also political policy. A leader who controls a social media platform can leverage it to advance their political goals, garner support for their policies, and even apply pressure to other branches of government. In effect, it introduces a new kind of influence—one that operates outside the established checks and balances of democratic governance.
Doesn’t sound so much like “freedom of speech” when you put it that way, right?
Implications for Democratic Engagement and Political Control
The potential of social media to either enhance democratic engagement or enable new forms of political control is a double-edged sword. On one hand, social media platforms allow for a more participatory form of democracy, where audiences can engage with politicians directly, ask questions, and participate in discussions about policies that affect them. This could lead to a more informed and engaged electorate, as well as a political process that is more responsive to the concerns of ordinary people.
However, the concentration of control in the hands of a few powerful social media CEOs could lead to a situation where public discourse is subtly (or overtly) controlled by those who run these platforms. The potential for abuse becomes especially concerning when a single individual or company wields significant influence over both government policies and the channels of public communication. In this scenario, social media could become a tool of political manipulation, where dissenting voices are suppressed, and narratives that support the interests of those in power are promoted.
In Musk’s case, as a member of the president’s “cabinet” who owns a major social media platform, his ability to sway public opinion and control public discourse could challenge the integrity of democratic institutions. A president with direct control over a digital public square could sideline traditional forms of accountability, like the press and opposition parties, by simply amplifying his own message and suppressing dissent. In extreme cases, this could lead to a form of digital authoritarianism, where political power is consolidated not through force or coercion, but through control over information.
A New Challenge for Future Generations
As future generations navigate this, they will face pressing questions about the intersection of social media and government. Should social media platforms be treated as public utilities subject to government oversight, given their central role in democracy? Should there be regulatory safeguards to prevent political figures from using social media platforms as propaganda tools? Should there be more transparency in how these platforms operate, particularly in terms of content moderation, data usage, and algorithmic transparency?
These are not easy questions, and the answers will likely vary across different political and cultural contexts. But one thing is clear: the convergence of social media and political power is altering the structure of modern democracy. For future generations, understanding and addressing the role of social media in governance will be essential for preserving democratic values and ensuring that these platforms serve the public good rather than consolidating control in the hands of a few.
An Era of Digital Democracy or Digital Control?
In the age of social media, the digital public square has the potential to either revitalise democracy or create new pathways for control. Elon Musk’s journey from tech mogul to the White House underscores this tension. His trajectory shows how powerful the direct connection between social media and political influence can be. As we look to the future, the challenge will be to harness the democratic potential of social media while safeguarding against the risks of concentrated control.
The future of democracy may very well hinge on how we address this balance. Should political leaders be held more stringently in terms of “conflicts of interest.” Does this mean there should be “conditions” in place to become a political leader? But then does that not too threaten the idea of democracy and choosing our leaders? It’s not entirely a wrong or right choice scenario and I can confidently say I’m happy I am not the one who will make it.
So, what will happen next? Elon for 2028 anyone?
