Techno-oligarchs are using social media to normalise fascism

First published in Portuguese at Red Anticapitalista. Translation by Phil Hearse.

In 1978, Sérgio Godinho sang in Lá isso é that “fascism is a worm that burrows into the apple, it comes either with heavy boots or with soft little feet.” He wanted to warn us that fascism takes different forms and manifests itself through various means — some obvious, others more subtle. What Sérgio Godinho could not have imagined in 1978 was the instrument that, in the following century, the forces sympathetic to fascist ideas would use to embed themselves in society: online social networks.

In recent decades, social media has profoundly transformed how people relate to politics, changing the way ideologies are spread and power is contested. Although once celebrated as democratising tools, platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter/X, TikTok and Instagram have become fertile ground for the dissemination of fascist and authoritarian ideologies.

Many question whether the ideology and culture currently shared by far-right forces can or should be considered fascism. For the purpose of this text, Umberto Eco’s definition is particularly useful. For Eco, fascism is a modus operandi that can be found in different forms of government. 

One of its defining features is the rejection of critical thinking — which prevents questioning and sustains a worldview based on emotion, dogma and blind obedience, intolerant of dissent. It appeals to irrational feelings such as fear, hatred, and nostalgia for an idealised past; it simplifies all explanations for social phenomena through slogans, myths and conspiracy theories. 

In addition, Eco argues that fascists exploit middle-class prejudices against minority groups, turning them into scapegoats and creating a sense of group identity from a common enemy. By designating a social group as an enemy to be fought, fascism operates through a divisive logic that weakens the popular classes so they can be better controlled.

It is not difficult to find in the above description a portrait of the logic with which the far right has acted over the past few decades to win electoral support around the world. Contemporary fascism is not an exact replica of the ideologies that rose to power in the 1930s, but it shares fundamental traits, such as ultranationalism; the rejection of democratic norms, critical thinking and the separation of powers (especially an independent judiciary); the scapegoating of minorities; and the glorification of strong leaders. Some call it “soft fascism.”

Social networks and fascism

What most distinguishes the present is the medium: fascism has adapted to the digital ecosystem, using the aesthetics, language and engagement tools of social media to gain traction. It now manifests itself through memes, influencer culture and algorithmic amplification, rather than uniforms and mass rallies, as in the fascism of the early 20th century.

Social networks, originally designed to promote digital interaction, self-expression and information sharing, have become instruments for the promotion of authoritarian ideologies — which thrive on division, fear and manipulation of public perception — and for building that very culture of fear and division through radicalisation strategies and hate speech filled with misogynistic, racist and conspiratorial content. Instead of party newspapers or radio broadcasts, we now have YouTube rants, Reddit forums and Instagram videos spreading authoritarian ideas in attractive formats.

In this process of eroding democratic norms and consolidating a fascist culture through social media, two aspects have been crucial: one technological — the operational mechanisms of social networks (algorithms, content moderation policies and engagement models); the other social — the ownership of these networks by a small group of techno-oligarchs.

Algorithms and amplifying extremism

Social networks operate with algorithms designed to maximise user engagement. Content that provokes intense emotional reactions — anger, fear, outrage — performs best. The algorithm does not care about the truth or harmful impact of content; it only cares about clicks, shares and watch time. 

This creates a vicious cycle in which users are gradually exposed to increasingly extreme content the more they interact. Studies by the Mozilla Foundation and the Center for Countering Digital Hate show how YouTube’s recommendation system can quickly push users from moderately conservative content toward openly fascist, white supremacist or misogynistic videos.

The structure and functionality of social networks favour the type of content produced by the far right, with its sensationalist tone and polarising viewpoints. Hate speech, alarmism and fake news perform particularly well in this environment because of their ability to generate strong emotional engagement. Sensationalist headlines, misleading narratives and conspiracy theories are shared and commented on far more than factual reports or complex analyses.

This dynamic is amplified by echo chambers created by algorithmic sorting, which feeds users content that aligns with their biases, reinforcing their views and isolating them from counterarguments or factual corrections. For example, if a user frequently interacts with posts containing racist or misogynistic language, the algorithm will continue to present similar content, reinforcing those beliefs and normalising such discourse within their social circle.

This ecosystem allows misinformation to spread and creates a distorted perception of consensus. When users repeatedly see extreme opinions gaining visibility, they tend to assume those ideas are more popular than they really are. Regarding fascist ideas, this illusion of social consensus contributes to their validation, encouraging their adoption and promotion.

Moreover, the absence of strict moderation policies allows hate speech to flourish. Although some companies have implemented measures against harmful content, the overwhelming volume of posts and the speed of their spread make consistent enforcement nearly impossible. This moderation deficit is exploited by fascist groups, which use coded language, memes and symbolism to bypass filters and spread their messages.

The consequences of this algorithmic amplification are profound. Hate speech not only dehumanises marginalised groups but fosters a culture of hostility and division. In the context of the far right’s use of social media, this hostility is often directed against immigrants, minorities or political opponents, serving as a tool to unite followers around a “us versus them” narrative. 

By repeatedly exposing users to this type of content, digital platforms contribute to the erosion of empathy and to the creation of an environment where violence or exclusion are seen as reasonable responses to perceived threats. This becomes especially dangerous when combined with fear-based narratives designed to incite anxiety and justify authoritarian measures.

Property and ideological capture: How the far right exploits technological power to normalise fascism

The ownership of major social networks further complicates the picture. In recent years, we have witnessed the growing appropriation and instrumentalisation of social media by billionaire figures with political affinities to the far right, such as Elon Musk (X, formerly Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook, Instagram). This concentration of technological power in private hands with authoritarian ideological leanings has facilitated the spread and normalisation of fascist ideas, disguised under the deceitful banner of “freedom of speech.”

Elon Musk and the radicalisation of Twitter

Since Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022, we have seen an intentional, planned and systematic dismantling of content moderation mechanisms. Musk fired more than 80% of the moderation staff and dissolved the company’s Trust and Safety Council. At the same time, he reinstated accounts previously banned for violating platform policies, including those of Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson and various QAnon accounts.

Empirical studies have shown that, in the months following the acquisition, hate speech levels skyrocketed on Twitter. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the use of racial slurs against Black people rose by 202%, and homophobic terms by 53%. Additionally, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reported a 61% rise in antisemitic mentions on X in the first half of 2023.

Although Musk has repeatedly claimed his management aims merely to “restore freedom of speech” even if that means tolerating extremist discourse, a Platformer report revealed that Musk personally ordered algorithm changes to amplify his own tweets, boosting their visibility by more than 1000%. This algorithmic manipulation also benefitted ideologically aligned far-right accounts, creating an environment conducive to radicalisation.

Zuckerberg and the Meta empire: Strategic omission and profiting from hate

While Zuckerberg publicly maintained a more neutral stance for some time, the effects of his business decisions are no less serious. Studies have shown that Facebook’s algorithms promote emotionally charged content — often hate, fear and polarisation. An internal document revealed that Facebook engineers had already warned, back in 2018, that “the algorithms were encouraging divisions and political extremism.”

During the 2016, 2020, and 2024 US presidential elections, Facebook was the epicentre of the spread of fake news favouring Trump, including false claims of electoral fraud. An investigation by MIT Technology Review found that 64% of people who joined extremist groups did so through algorithmic suggestions by the platform. Furthermore, Facebook was accused of allowing paid political advertising with disinformation, helping anti-immigration and anti-LGBTQI+ movements thrive in several countries. 

In 2021, former Facebook employee Frances Haugen provided evidence to US Congress that the company prioritised “profit over safety,” even knowing its systems fostered extremism. If there was any doubt about Zuckerberg’s intent to instrumentalise Facebook for the spread of extremist ideals, they were dispelled in 2024 when Zuckerberg endorsed Trump’s re-election — after which he ended content moderation altogether.

The private control of digital platforms by billionaires with authoritarian leanings has created a reality where technology serves as a vehicle for political radicalisation. Musk and Zuckerberg are redesigning the digital public sphere to make fascist ideas not only visible but culturally acceptable. This scenario constitutes a new form of hegemony — a neoliberal algorithmic dictatorship — where digital infrastructures become tools of social engineering serving the concentration of economic, ideological and political power.

Instead of strengthening democracy, social media has become a weapon for mass disinformation and normalising authoritarianism. It is urgent to dismantle the power of techno-oligarchs, socialise social networks and ensure democratic governance.

Democratising the digital space: Countering the fascistic domination of social media by techno-oligarchs

Despite certain European legal mechanisms such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), the power of Big Tech remains largely untouched. The DSA, for example, still relies on the voluntary cooperation of platforms to combat illegal content, without interfering with the commercial logic that prioritises the virality of toxic content.

Authors such as Shoshana Zuboff have warned that surveillance capitalism — the logic by which personal data are commodified to anticipate and modify behaviour — escapes traditional regulatory forms. What is needed is a radically new approach, one that does not merely correct excesses but structurally changes who owns and controls digital communication media.

The left must adopt a digital agenda that prioritises democratising platform governance, reducing techno-oligarchic power and promoting a digital ecosystem oriented toward the public good. This agenda should include measures such as:

• Public and social ownership of platforms: Social networks should be treated as essential critical infrastructures — like water or energy networks — and be subject to public control. Like public radio and television services, social networks should be publicly funded and guided by public-interest criteria, not by the logic of profit and surveillance.
• Democratic and transparent regulation: State regulation of major digital platforms must go beyond content moderation or data protection, imposing obligations of algorithmic transparency, limits on ownership concentration, and clear rules on editorial responsibility. Regulation should not focus solely on technical aspects but also aim to defend democracy and human rights against authoritarian projects disguised as “freedom of speech.”
• Democratic management: Instead of unilateral decisions made by techno-oligarchs with their own ideological agendas, social media governance should be shared, transparent and democratically accountable. “Algorithmic self-management” should enter the political vocabulary of anyone who defends a free and fair internet.
• Digital education and sovereignty: Populations must be empowered to understand and resist algorithmic manipulation, with national programs for critical digital education (as recommended by UNESCO), and investments in free software and public servers, as countries such as Germany and France have done in some sectors.

However, such measures are not enough and contain the paradox of depending on governments to regulate platforms in which they themselves have vested interests. These measures, while necessary, do not eliminate the possibility of governments — whether authoritarian, fascist-leaning or liberal but captured by private economic power — using regulation to control social networks as tools of manipulation, censorship, surveillance, or to criminalise dissent. 

Thus, the solution cannot rely solely on the state, under penalty of reinforcing what it seeks to combat: the capture of digital space by authoritarian or technocratic logics.

Alternative networks as political action and an instrument of class struggle

To confront this problem, proposals from the radical and anti-capitalist left must go further and articulate multiple strategies combining citizen action, the creation of alternative infrastructures and organised political resistance. This includes: critical digital literacy, promoted in grassroots spaces alongside formal education, to provide training on how algorithms work, the logic of surveillance and the political role of social media; boycotting and migrating away from toxic platforms (such as X or Facebook) in favour of decentralised and ethical networks that, even without mass scale, help build alternative culture and autonomy; and the citizen-led creation of alternative networks.

The citizen creation of alternative social networks — based on free software, decentralisation and transparency — is an act of technological disobedience, an exercise in building collective autonomy, and an essential element of the contemporary class struggle. The class struggle today also unfolds in the digital realm, with the techno-oligarchic elite using their platforms to accumulate wealth and control subjectivities.

Citizen-created alternative networks are a powerful weapon against surveillance — avoiding mass data collection, protecting privacy and preventing behavioral tracking that sustains surveillance capitalism — and against algorithmic hierarchy — promoting content ranked by community choice, not profit or polarisation. 

In this sense, they represent a form of digital popular power, stripping techno-oligarchs of their economic power and ability to manipulate elections, desires and social relations, while creating spaces of solidarity and decentralised communication that foster countercultural and counter-hegemonic content. The act of users building their own infrastructures and rejecting the role of mere consumers of techno-oligarchic networks is, in itself, an act of anti-capitalist politics.

The left must incorporate the struggle for structural transformation of the ownership, control and logic of social networks into its core agenda. To defend health, housing and the environment while ignoring the digital sphere, is to abandon one of today’s main battlefields. Networks are now instruments of ideological power, social control and capital reproduction. Change must arise from articulated, collective and politicised action “from below.”

The citizen creation of alternative social networks, for example, is not merely a technical act but a social, cultural and political struggle that challenges the power and control of techno-oligarchs and the governments that serve them. It will be a slow, long process, built from the margins, and it demands patience. But every instance created, every network switched, every digital culture built outside the dominant system will be a crack in the algorithmic dictatorship.