We are at the precipice of a deeper reckoning with the political and informational landscapes that shape our lives. The next presidential term may reveal the full consequences of a transformation already underway, where the old ways of understanding and responding to power are no longer sufficient. This isn’t about scoring points by saying “I told you so.” It’s a wake up call, a recognition that we’ve entered a new, more dangerous phase in the weaponization of information.

Over the past eight years, we’ve learned a new lexicon of manipulation: misinformation, disinformation, microtargeting, and information warfare. These terms are not abstract; they describe the mechanisms through which reality itself has been bent and weaponized. For example, the propagation of false narratives, such as the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory or disinformation about election fraud, have had tangible, real-world consequences, demonstrating how easily falsehoods can spread and incite action. Moreover, a study by the Oxford Internet Institute found that social media algorithms tend to prioritize engagement over accuracy, leading to the rapid spread of misinformation and the formation of echo chambers where users are primarily exposed to information that confirms their existing biases.

Journalists, alongside whistleblowers and investigators, have worked tirelessly to expose the vulnerabilities of social media—platforms that have become fertile ground for exploitation by actors like Cambridge Analytica, which used harvested Facebook data to microtarget voters, and the Russian Internet Research Agency, which used social media to spread divisive content during the 2016 US election. But these revelations have proven inadequate. The very systems they exposed have adapted, evolving into something even more insidious.

In Congress, a judiciary subcommittee on the so-called “weaponisation of the federal government” has convened. Ostensibly investigating the “censorship industrial complex,” it has become a partisan inquisition targeting academics, journalists, and critics under the guise of protecting free speech. Elon Musk, in a characteristic display of performative governance, recently tweeted that the next phase of this campaign will involve “prosecutions.” His words are not empty. Those on the receiving end—academics and intellectuals—find themselves bracing for choices between resistance and exile. This follows Musk’s decision to reinstate previously banned accounts on X, such as that of far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, under the banner of free speech absolutism, despite the potential for harm.

Trump’s List, Authoritarian Playbooks, and Global Lessons

Donald Trump’s “enemies list” is no metaphorical construct. It’s a real and actionable directive. In 2022, Trump announced a “day one” executive order for the Department of Justice to investigate those allegedly complicit in a nebulous “online censorship regime.” The implications are clear: dissent will be criminalized, and the machinery of justice will be turned against those who resist his narrative.

The warning from Maria Ressa, a Nobel laureate and journalist from the Philippines, is chilling. Her experience under President Duterte, whose government systematically dismantled democratic institutions, serves as a cautionary tale. “It took six months for our institutions to crumble,” she writes, after Duterte consolidated control over the branches of government. Ressa herself was arrested shortly thereafter. We see similar tactics being employed elsewhere. In India, the Modi government has been accused of using social media to spread Hindu nationalist propaganda and silence critics. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro’s administration was known for its use of disinformation campaigns on social media to target opponents. These are not isolated incidents but part of a global trend towards using digital tools for authoritarian ends.

The parallels are stark. The lessons from the first wave of disruption (2016–2024)—when algorithms delivered Brexit and Trump’s first term—are obsolete. What was once a battleground for political debate has become something far more insidious: social media is no longer a weapon wielded by political actors; it is the weapon itself.

The Medium Is Musk

Marshall McLuhan famously said, “The medium is the message.” Today, the medium is Musk. The world’s richest man has transformed himself into a shadow head of state, wielding control over a global communications platform. His consolidation of power isn’t just about influence—it’s about the obliteration of traditional checks and balances. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now X, and his subsequent policy changes, including the dismantling of content moderation teams and the reinstatement of controversial accounts, represent a paradigm shift, where the flow of information and the very architecture of public discourse are determined by a single oligarch.

The consequences of this technological revolution are profound. What began as a tech-induced mudslide has become a full-blown collapse of Enlightenment ideals—truth, evidence, and reason. These core pillars of democratic society have been eroded by a relentless stream of lies and disinformation. While it is true that social media has, in some instances, empowered marginalized voices and facilitated social movements, such as the Arab Spring, these positive aspects do not negate the urgent need to address the platforms’ negative consequences, particularly their susceptibility to manipulation and the spread of harmful content.

For those who still cling to curated, fact-checked news, it’s easy to feel insulated. But venture beyond these walled gardens into the “information sewers” where the majority of the world consumes its media, and the reality becomes clear. Like pre-sanitation London, our information ecosystem is contaminated, and its effects are inescapable.

From Culture to Oligarchy

The collapse of Silicon Valley’s accountability has enabled the rise of a new ruling elite. Figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel no longer hide their alliances with authoritarian movements. Zuckerberg’s decision to allow political ads on Facebook without fact-checking, and Thiel’s open support for right-wing populist candidates, are examples of this shift. Musk, meanwhile, has transformed his platform into a tool of statecraft, amplifying Kremlin-aligned talking points and forging ties with global strongmen, such as his public interactions with authoritarian leaders. This is oligarchy in its purest form—the fusion of state and corporate power.

As Steve Bannon once observed, “Politics is downstream from culture.” Today’s culture—dominated by memes, podcasts, and social media—is shaped by algorithms designed by tech bros and billionaires. Elections are no longer decided in polling stations but in the data centers of Silicon Valley.

Support for figures like Trump and Musk reflects this cultural shift. Their followers aren’t just voting for policies; they’re voting for an aesthetic. Fitness influencers, crypto evangelists, and tech futurists now define the zeitgeist, as much as party platforms or campaign slogans ever did.

The Way Forward: Fixing the Pipes

The first cycle of algorithmic disruption is complete. The norms and rules that governed the old world order have collapsed, replaced by a chaotic new reality where truth is just another casualty. Trump may be the pathogen infecting this system, but the real problem is structural: the pipes are broken.

This is where the fight must begin—not in simply combating the latest wave of lies, but in rebuilding the infrastructure of truth itself. We must demand transparency from platforms. This could involve legislation mandating algorithmic transparency, requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms work and what data they use to rank and recommend content. We need to hold tech elites accountable. This could include stronger antitrust regulations to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few tech giants. We should push for systemic reforms that prioritize democratic values over profit. This might involve exploring alternative models for social media and information sharing, such as decentralized platforms like Mastodon or Bluesky, where control is distributed among users rather than concentrated in a single corporation. Public service media initiatives, funded by governments but independent in their operations, could also play a vital role in providing reliable information and fostering informed public discourse.

Individuals also have a role to play. We can all be more critical consumers of information, verifying sources before sharing content and supporting independent media outlets that prioritize accuracy and accountability. We can also engage in media literacy initiatives, helping others to navigate the complex information landscape.

While there are concerns that increased regulation of social media could infringe on free speech, it’s important to remember that the current, largely unregulated state of these platforms also poses a threat to free and open discourse. The goal should be to find a balance that protects freedom of expression while mitigating the harms caused by the spread of misinformation, hate speech, and manipulation. This will require careful consideration and ongoing debate.

International Cooperation

Addressing these challenges will require international cooperation. Tech companies operate globally, and their impact transcends national borders. Governments around the world must work together to develop common standards and regulations for data privacy, platform accountability, and the prevention of online harms.

We are through the looking glass. The challenge now is not to wake up from this nightmare, but to redesign the very systems that allowed it to flourish. Only then can we hope to repair the damage and create a future where truth, justice, and reason can thrive once again.