A German court has ruled that Elon Musk’s social media platform X must provide researchers with data to track the spread of misinformation ahead of the country’s national election on 23 February. The Berlin district court’s decision follows a legal challenge by civil rights groups, who argued that the platform had a duty under European law to make election-related engagement data more accessible.
The German ruling obliges X to disclose information such as post reach, shares, and likes, allowing researchers to monitor how misleading narratives circulate online. The court emphasised that immediate access to the data was crucial, as delays could undermine efforts to track election-related disinformation in real time. The company, which had failed to respond to a previous request for information, was also ordered to cover the €6,000 legal costs.
The case was brought forward by the German Society for Civil Rights (GFF) and Democracy Reporting International, who hailed the verdict as a major win for democratic integrity. Concerns over misinformation on X have intensified, particularly following Musk’s public endorsement of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), currently polling in second place. In January, Musk posted that ‘only the AfD can save Germany,’ sparking further scrutiny over the platform’s role in political discourse.
X has yet to respond to the ruling. The decision could set a precedent for how social media companies handle election-related transparency, particularly within the European Union’s regulatory framework.
In today’s digital age, the rapid proliferation of information has empowered and complicated the way societies communicate and stay informed. At its best, this interconnectedness fosters creativity, knowledge-sharing, and transparency. However, it also opens the floodgates for misinformation, disinformation, and the rise of deepfakes, tools that distort truth and challenge our ability to distinguish fact from fiction. These modern challenges are not confined to the fringes of the internet; they infiltrate mainstream platforms, influencing public opinion, political decisions, and cultural narratives on an unprecedented scale.
I’m sure TJ would never ever have said this about Fed or Nadal.
The emergence of alternative media platforms like podcasts, social media networks, and independent streaming channels has disrupted the traditional gatekeepers of information. While these platforms offer voices outside the mainstream a chance to be heard, they also often lack the editorial oversight of traditional media. This peculiarity has created a complex media ecosystem where authenticity competes with sensationalism, and viral content can quickly overshadow fact-checking.
Content policy has become a battlefield, with platforms struggling to balance free expression and the need to curb harmful or deceptive narratives. The debate is further complicated by the increasing sophistication of deepfake technology and AI-generated content, which can fabricate convincing yet entirely false narratives. Whether it is a politician giving a speech they never delivered, a celebrity endorsing a product they have never used, or a manipulated video sparking social unrest, the stakes are high.
These challenges have sparked fierce debates among tech giants, policymakers, journalists, and users on who should bear responsibility for ensuring accurate and ethical content. Against this backdrop, recent high-profile incidents, such as Novak Djokovic’s response to perceived media bias and Joe Rogan’s defiance of traditional norms, or Elon Musk’s ‘nazi salute’, highlight the tension between established media practices and the uncharted territory of modern communication channels. These case studies shed light on the shifting dynamics of information dissemination in an era where the lines between truth and fabrication are increasingly blurred.
Case study No. 1: The Djokovic incident, traditional media vs social media dynamics
The intersection of media and public discourse took centre stage during the 2025 Australian Open when tennis icon Novak Djokovic decided to boycott an on-court interview with Channel 9, the official broadcaster of the tournament. The decision, rooted in a dispute over comments made by one of its journalists, Tony Jones, highlighted the ongoing tension between traditional media’s content policies and the freedom of expression offered by modern social media platforms.
Novak Djokovic did not do a post-match interview after his win at Australian Open.
He gave a quick statement, signed some autographs, and was booed by some of the crowd as he left.
Namely, on 19 January 2025, following his victory over Jiri Lehecka in the fourth round of the Australian Open, Novak Djokovic, the 24-time Grand Slam champion, refused to engage in the customary on-court interview for Channel 9, a long-standing practice in tennis that directly connects players with fans. The reason was not due to personal animosity towards the interviewer, Jim Courier, but rather a response to remarks made by Channel 9 sports journalist Tony Jones. During a live broadcast, Jones had mocked Serbian fans chanting for Djokovic, calling the player ‘overrated’ and a ‘has-been,’ and even suggested they ‘kick him out’, a phrase that resonated deeply given Djokovic’s previous deportation from Australia over vaccine mandate issues in 2022.
The response and social media amplification
In his post-match press conference, Djokovic clarified his stance, saying that he would not conduct interviews with Channel 9 until he received an apology from both Jones and the network for what he described as ‘insulting and offensive’ comments. The incident quickly escalated beyond the tennis courts when Djokovic took to X (formerly Twitter) to share a video explaining his actions, directly addressing his fans and the broader public.
What happened was a protest against the Australian broadcaster and the strategic use of social media to bypass traditional media channels, often seen as gatekeepers of information with their own biases and agendas. The response was immediate; the video went viral, drawing comments from various quarters, including from Elon Musk, the owner of X. Musk retweeted Djokovic’s video with a critique of ‘legacy media’, stating, ‘It’s way better just to talk to the public directly than go through the negativity filter of legacy media.’ Djokovic’s simple reply, ‘Indeed’, underscored his alignment with this view, further fuelling the discussion about media integrity and control.
It’s way better just to talk to the public directly than go through the negativity filter of legacy media https://t.co/QYDJXWAC5r
The incident brings to light several issues concerning content policy in traditional media. Traditional media like Channel 9 operate under strict content policies where editorial decisions are made to balance entertainment and journalistic integrity. However, remarks like those from Jones can blur this line, leading to public backlash and accusations of bias or misinformation.
The response from Channel 9, an apology after the public outcry, showcases the reactive nature of traditional media when managing content that might be deemed offensive or misinformative, often after significant damage has been done to public perception.
Unlike social media, where anyone can broadcast their viewpoint, traditional media has the infrastructure for fact-checking but can also be accused of pushing a narrative. The Djokovic case has raised questions about whether Jones’s comments were intended as humour or reflected a deeper bias against Djokovic or his nationality.
The role of social media
Social media platforms such as X enable figures like Djokovic to communicate directly with their audience, controlling their narrative without the mediation of traditional media. Direct public exposure can be empowering, but it can also bypass established journalistic checks and balances.
While this incident showcased the power of social media for positive storytelling, it also highlights the platform’s potential for misinformation. Messages can be amplified without context or correction without editorial oversight, leading to public misinterpretation.
Case study No. 2: Alternative media and political discourse – The Joe Rogan experience
As traditional media grapples with issues of trust and relevance, alternative media platforms like podcasts have risen, offering new avenues for information dissemination. Joe Rogan’s podcast, ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’, has become a significant player in this space, influencing political discourse and public opinion, mainly through his interviews with high-profile figures such as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
Donald Trump’s podcast appearance
In 2024, Donald Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast was a pivotal moment, often credited with aiding his resurgence in the political arena, leading to his election as the 47th President of the USA. The podcast format allowed for an extended, unscripted conversation, allowing Trump to discuss his policies, personality, and plans without the usual media constraints.
Unlike traditional media interviews, where questions and answers are often tightly controlled, Rogan’s podcast allowed Trump to engage with audiences more authentically, potentially influencing voters who felt alienated by mainstream media.
Critics argue that such platforms can spread misinformation due to the lack of immediate fact-checking. Yet, supporters laud the format for allowing a deeper understanding of the candidate’s views without the spin of journalists.
Kamala Harris’s conditional interview
Contrastingly, Kamala Harris’s approach to the same platform was markedly different. She requested special conditions for her interview, including pre-approved questions, which Rogan declined. Harris then chose not to participate, highlighting a critical difference in how politicians view and interact with alternative media. Her decision reflects a broader strategy among some politicians to control their media exposure, preferring environments where the narrative can be shaped to their advantage, which is often less feasible in an open podcast format.
Some might see her refusal as avoidance of tough, unfiltered questions, potentially impacting her public image as less transparent than figures like Trump, who embraced the platform.
Vladimir Klitschko’s interview on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience‘
Adding another layer to this narrative, former Ukrainian boxer and political figure Vladimir Klitschko appeared on Rogan’s show, discussing his athletic career and geopolitical issues affecting Ukraine. This interview showcased how alternative media like podcasts can give a voice to international figures, offering a different perspective on global issues that might be underrepresented or misrepresented in traditional media.
Rogan’s discussions often delve into subjects with educational value, providing listeners with nuanced insights into complex topics, something traditional news might cover in soundbites.
Analysing media dynamics
Content policy in alternative media: While Rogan’s podcast does not adhere to the same content policies as traditional media, it does have its own set of guidelines, which include a commitment to free speech and a responsibility not to platform dangerous misinformation.
Fact-checking and public accountability: Unlike traditional media, where fact-checking can be institutional, podcast listeners often take on this role, leading to community-driven corrections or discussions on platforms like Reddit or X.
The spread of disinformation: Like social media, podcasts can be vectors of misinformation if not moderated or if hosts fail to challenge or correct inaccuracies. However, Rogan’s approach often includes challenging guests, providing a counterbalance.
Impact on journalism: The rise of podcasts challenges traditional journalism by offering alternative narratives, sometimes at the cost of depth or accuracy but gaining in terms of directness and personal connection with the audience.
Case study No. 3: Elon Musk and the ‘Nazi salute’
The evolution of media consumption has been profound, with the rise of social media and alternative channels significantly altering the landscape traditionally dominated by legacy media. The signs of this evolution are poignantly highlighted in a tweet by Elon Musk, where he commented on the dynamics of media interaction:
‘It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience. In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media.’ – Elon Musk, 24 January 2025, 10:22 UTC
It was astonishing how insanely hard legacy media tried to cancel me for saying “my heart goes out to you” and moving my hand from my heart to the audience.
In the end, this deception will just be another nail in the coffin of legacy media. https://t.co/RKa3UsB7sd
Legacy media, encompassing print, television, and radio, has long been the public’s primary source of news and information. These platforms have established content policies to ensure journalistic integrity, fact-checking, and editorial oversight. However, as Musk’s tweet suggests, they are often perceived as inherently biased, sometimes acting as ‘negativity filters’ that skew public perception. This critique reflects a broader sentiment that legacy media can be slow to adapt, overly cautious, and sometimes accused of pushing an agenda, as seen in Musk’s experience of being ‘cancelled’ over a simple gesture interpreted out of context. The traditional model involves gatekeepers who decide what news reaches the audience, which can lead to a controlled narrative that might not always reflect the full spectrum of public discourse.
Modern social media: direct engagement
In contrast, social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) democratise information dissemination by allowing direct communication from individuals to the public, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. Musk’s use of X to address his audience directly illustrates this shift. Social media provides an unfiltered stage where public figures can share their stories, engage in real-time, and counteract what they see as biassed reporting from legacy media. This directness enhances transparency and authenticity but also poses significant challenges. Without the same level of editorial oversight, misinformation can spread rapidly, as social media algorithms often prioritise engagement over accuracy, potentially amplifying falsehoods or sensational content.
Alternative media channels: a new frontier
Beyond social media, alternative channels like podcasts, independent streaming services, and blogs have emerged, offering even more diverse voices and perspectives. These platforms often operate with less stringent content policies, emphasising freedom of speech and direct audience interaction. For instance, podcasts like ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ have become influential by hosting long-form discussions that delve deeper into topics than typical news segments. This format allows for nuanced conversations but lacks the immediate fact-checking mechanisms of traditional media, relying instead on the community or the host’s discretion to challenge or correct misinformation. The rise of alternative media has challenged the monopoly of legacy media, providing platforms where narratives can be shaped by content creators themselves, often leading to a richer, albeit sometimes less regulated, exchange of ideas.
Content policy and freedom of expression
The tension between content policy and freedom of expression is starkly highlighted in Musk’s tweet. Legacy media’s structured approach to content can sometimes suppress voices or misrepresent intentions, as Musk felt with his gesture. On the other hand, social media and alternative platforms offer broader freedom of expression, yet this freedom comes with the responsibility to manage content that might be misleading or harmful. The debate here revolves around how much control should be exerted over content to prevent harm while preserving the open nature of these platforms. Musk’s situation underscores the need for a balanced approach where the public can engage with authentic expressions without the distortion of ‘legacy media’s negativity filter’.
To summarise:
The juxtaposition of Djokovic’s media strategies and the political interviews on ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ illustrates a shift in how information is consumed, controlled, and critiqued. Traditional media continues to wield considerable influence but is increasingly challenged by platforms offering less censorship, potentially more misinformation, and direct, unfiltered communication.
Elon Musk’s tweet is another vivid example of the ongoing battle between legacy media’s control over narrative and the liberating yet chaotic nature of modern social media and alternative channels. These platforms have reshaped the way information is consumed, offering both opportunities for direct, unmediated communication and challenges in maintaining the integrity of information.
As society continues to navigate this complex media landscape, the balance between ensuring factual accuracy, preventing misinformation, and respecting freedom of speech will remain a critical discussion point. The future of media lies in finding this equilibrium, where the benefits of both traditional oversight (perhaps through stringent/severe regulatory measures) and modern openness can coexist to serve an informed and engaged public.
Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Faeser, has called on social media companies to take stronger action against disinformation ahead of the federal parliamentary election on 23 February. Faeser urged platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok to label AI-manipulated videos, clearly identify political advertising, and ensure compliance with European laws. She also emphasised the need for platforms to report and remove criminal content swiftly, including death threats.
Faeser met with representatives of major tech firms to underline the importance of transparency in algorithms, warning against the risk of online radicalisation, particularly among young people. Her concerns come amidst growing fears of disinformation campaigns, possibly originating from Russia, that could influence the upcoming election. She reiterated that platforms must ensure they do not fuel societal division through unchecked content.
Calls for greater accountability in the tech industry are gaining momentum. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez criticised social media owners for enabling algorithms that erode democracy and “poison society.” Faeser’s warnings highlight the growing international demand for stronger regulations on social media to safeguard democratic processes.
South Sudan has suspended access to social media platforms for at least 30 days following violent riots triggered by videos allegedly showing the killings of South Sudanese nationals in Sudan’s El Gezira state. The decision, announced by the National Communications Authority on Wednesday, aims to curb the spread of extreme content and prevent further unrest. Mobile operators MTN South Sudan and Zain confirmed that platforms like Facebook and TikTok would be inaccessible for up to 90 days.
The riots, which erupted in the capital, Juba and other cities, led to the deaths of at least 16 Sudanese nationals. Angry youths looted shops, vandalised property, and burned homes belonging to Sudanese nationals, believing Sudan’s military and its allies were involved in the El Gezira killings. South Sudanese authorities have condemned the violence, urging calm and restraint.
The Sudanese army has also criticised what it described as ‘individual violations’ in El Gezira. The social media ban is part of a broader effort to restore order and prevent further acts of retaliation, as tensions remain high between the neighbouring nations.
OpenAI has told an Indian court that removing training data used for its ChatGPT service would conflict with its legal obligations in the United States. The company, backed by Microsoft, is defending a copyright lawsuit filed by Indian news agency ANI, which accuses OpenAI of using its content without permission and demands the deletion of ANI’s data from ChatGPT’s memory.
In a January 10 filing, OpenAI argued that Indian courts lack jurisdiction as the company has no physical presence or data servers in India. It also emphasised its legal obligation in the US to preserve training data while litigation is ongoing. OpenAI denied wrongdoing, asserting its systems make fair use of publicly available data, a stance it has maintained in similar copyright disputes globally.
ANI insists the Delhi court has the authority to rule on the case, citing concerns over unfair competition and alleging that ChatGPT reproduces its content verbatim. OpenAI, however, countered that ANI manipulated prompts to elicit such responses. The court is set to hear the case on January 28, marking a key moment in India’s scrutiny of AI and copyright law.
Apple has suspended its AI-generated news summary feature after criticism from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). Concerns were raised over the tool’s inaccurate reporting and its potential role in spreading misinformation.
The NUJ welcomed the decision, emphasising the risks posed by automated reporting. Recent errors in AI-generated summaries highlighted how such tools can undermine public trust in journalism. Calls for a more human-centred approach in reporting were made by NUJ assistant general secretary, Séamus Dooley.
Apple’s decision follows growing scrutiny of AI’s role in journalism. Critics argue that while automation can streamline news delivery, it must not compromise accuracy or credibility.
The NUJ has urged Apple to prioritise transparency and accountability as it further develops its AI capabilities. Safeguarding trust in journalism remains a key concern in the evolving media landscape.
TikTok began restoring its services in the US on Sunday after President-elect Donald Trump announced plans to revive the app upon taking office on Monday. Speaking at a rally ahead of his inauguration, Trump assured his supporters that TikTok, a platform used by 170 million Americans, would be brought back online through a joint venture that protects national security. Hours earlier, TikTok users had received a message crediting Trump for the app’s restoration efforts.
TikTok ceased operations late Saturday after a law banning the platform on national security grounds came into effect. The shutdown sparked a frenzy among users and businesses dependent on the app, with web searches for VPNs surging and concerns mounting over disruptions to TikTok Shop transactions. The app’s temporary return relieves millions, but important questions remain about its long-term future in the US.
Trump’s pledge to extend the ban’s enforcement period to facilitate a deal marks a shift from his stance in 2020 when he sought to ban TikTok over concerns that its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, was sharing user data with Beijing. Trump now calls for a joint venture, proposing a 50% US ownership stake while guaranteeing that service providers would not face penalties for restoring TikTok.
Despite Trump’s assurances, the law mandating TikTok’s divestiture remains contentious. Republican lawmakers, including Senators Tom Cotton and Pete Ricketts, have criticised any attempt to circumvent the law, insisting that ByteDance sever all ties with China to meet the divestiture requirements. Meanwhile, TikTok’s ongoing connection to China continues to fuel tensions in US-China relations, with Beijing accusing Washington of unfairly targeting Chinese companies.
TikTok’s temporary return has reignited debates over its valuation, reportedly as high as $50 billion, and potential suitors, including former Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt and billionaire Elon Musk. While Beijing has reportedly discussed a possible sale, ByteDance denies such plans. Separately, US startup Perplexity AI has proposed merging with TikTok’s US operations to create a new entity.
The platform’s restoration signals its cultural and economic significance, but it also highlights the geopolitical complexities of its existence. Whether TikTok ultimately secures a deal or faces renewed legal battles, its journey reflects the growing and complicated intersection of technology, digital policies, cyber diplomacy, politics, and global commerce.
TikTok’s future in the US took a dramatic turn late Saturday as the app went offline ahead of a Sunday deadline mandated by US law. The US government’s move, affecting 170 million US users, marks an unprecedented shutdown of one of the world’s most influential social media platforms.
TikTok issued a message to users acknowledging the shutdown and expressing hope for a political resolution under the Trump administration, which takes office Monday 20 January 2025. Trump has indicated that he will announce an extension early next week.
The app’s disappearance has sparked many reactions among users, businesses, and competitors. Social media platforms like RedNote, Meta, and Snap have seen an influx of users and investor interest, while many TikTok creators expressed sadness and uncertainty online. Virtual private network (VPN) searches surged as users sought workarounds to access the platform, highlighting the app’s deep integration into American culture and commerce.
The uncertainty has created a ripple effect, with businesses that rely on TikTok for marketing and e-commerce scrambling to adapt. Many worry about the broader implications of this shutdown, which has deepened tensions between Washington and Beijing.
The prospect of a political compromise looms as Trump prepares to take office, but whether TikTok can return to US screens remains uncertain. The platform’s sudden disappearance underscores the complex intersection of technology, geopolitics, and commerce, leaving millions of users and businesses in limbo.
Mistral, a Paris-based AI company, has entered a groundbreaking partnership with Agence France-Presse (AFP) to enhance the accuracy of its chatbot, Le Chat. The deal signals Mistral’s determination to broaden its scope beyond foundational model development.
Through the agreement, Le Chat will gain access to AFP’s extensive archive, which includes over 2,300 daily stories in six languages and records dating back to 1983. While the focus remains on text content, photos and videos are not part of the multi-year arrangement. By incorporating AFP’s multilingual and multicultural resources, Mistral aims to deliver more accurate and reliable responses tailored to business needs.
The partnership bolsters Mistral’s standing against AI leaders like OpenAI and Anthropic, who have also secured similar content agreements. Le Chat’s enhanced features align with Mistral’s broader strategy to develop user-friendly applications that rival popular tools such as ChatGPT and Claude.
Mistral’s co-founder and CEO, Arthur Mensch, emphasised the importance of the partnership, describing it as a step toward offering clients a unique and culturally diverse AI solution. The agreement reinforces Mistral’s commitment to innovation and its global relevance in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.
Meta has announced that Instagram and Threads users will no longer be able to opt out of seeing political content from accounts they don’t follow. The change, part of a broader push toward promoting “free expression,” will take effect in the US this week and expand globally soon after. Users will be able to adjust how much political content they see but won’t be able to block it entirely.
Adam Mosseri, head of Instagram and Threads, had previously expressed reluctance to feature political posts, favouring community-focused content like sports and fashion. However, he now claims that users have asked to see more political material. Critics, including social media experts, argue the shift is driven by changing political dynamics in the US, particularly with Donald Trump’s imminent return to the White House.
While some users have welcomed Meta’s stance on free speech, many worry it could amplify misinformation and hate speech. Experts also caution that marginalised groups may face increased harm due to fewer content moderation measures. The changes could also push discontented users toward rival platforms like Bluesky, raising questions about Meta’s long-term strategy.
