The Muskification of media
“Big Tech represents an existential threat to journalism,” declared Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of Reporters Without Borders USA, during a panel titled The Muskification of American Media. “What solutions do we have against disinformation when powerful men are the ones spreading it?” he asked.
For Courtney Radsch, Director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty, the answer is clear: “Media must cover tech giants much more critically.” Alongside Patricia Campos Mello, Editor-in-Chief of Folha de São Paulo, and Anya Schiffrin, professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, the panel explored these issues and proposed several solutions.
The battle over language serves the interests of major platforms. Muskification reflects a form of Orwellian double-speak, according to Courtney Radsch: “Things are blurred — censorship is called free speech.” She denounces the strategic use of terms like “censorship” or “anti-Americanism” to discredit regulations such as the DSA or the AI Act. The panel referred to the controversy over the phrase “Golf of America,” which has pitted Donald Trump against the Associated Press, as an example of this confusion being deliberately fostered in public discourse. A similar situation unfolded in Brazil, where Patricia Campos Mello recalled how Elon Musk used the notion of free speech to defy a court ruling. In response to such manipulations, the panellists stressed the importance of clear definitions. Media, governments, and citizens cannot allow “tech bros” to redefine the meaning of words.
There is no need for new laws, the speakers asserted. The tools already exist — they just need to be used. “The European Union should stand firm and look to Brazil for inspiration,” said Courtney Radsch. Binding laws, competition policies, antitrust rules, taxation, requirements for transparency and copyright — the toolbox is there. It simply needs to be opened. In the face of Big Tech’s power, the panellists argued, the priority is to enforce existing rules, not rewrite them.
Newsrooms must change how they approach tech, urged Clayton Weimers. “We need to stop treating tech as just another beat. It is a political movement in its own right.” Behind the promises of innovation lie powerful ideologies. Anya Schiffrin, among others, referred to it as “techno-fascism,” while Courtney Radsch warned of the biases baked into large language models. “Elon Musk’s AI is walking into the White House,” she quipped. Meanwhile, some newsrooms are signing deals with platforms for “a few dollars” and helping to spread the narrative that this evolution is inevitable — an illusion, in her view.
Fighting back against the “techno-fascists” also means subscribing to media. Anya Schiffrin shared that she is surrounded by people looking for ways to take action without risking expulsion from the United States. Her answer is simple: subscribe to independent journalism, support outlets like The New York Times or other trusted media sources. A concrete gesture to strengthen a journalism ecosystem under pressure and to resist efforts to silence it.
To the question, “Can public pressure create change?”, the panel’s answer was unanimous and uncompromising: “No, public pressure cannot be exerted as long as the major platforms control the algorithms.”
In another panel, David Caswell offered a sharp summary of the Tesla CEO’s media journey, retracing his digital footprint — including a tweet that encapsulates his vision of moderation:
Later, it was stated: “Our goal is to maximise the number of seconds used without regret. Too much negative content is being pushed — which technically increases time spent, but not the time users do not regret.” And by 2029, according to Musk’s circle, AI will be more intelligent than humans. This once-beautiful idea of a decentralised Internet is, in reality, turning out to be deeply centralised.
What emerged from this panel: the need to strengthen technical skills, to develop an epistemic counterpower rooted in understanding, and to establish a new standard of excellence for information. Could the solution lie in Community Notes? We are shifting from a model in which trust was grounded in an identifiable journalist to one where it is transferred to the crowd.
As Yuval Harari points out, it is not the abundance of information that strengthens a society — we have seen this firsthand — but its capacity to seek the truth and correct itself.
