Hungarian response to the role of Western social media: digital sovereignty or digital censorship?

Following the controversial Romanian elections in the past weeks, in which the courts in Romania have decided to postpone the election due to the high level of Russian involvement in the campaign using paid bots on TikTok, an article was published by the Hungarian Sovereignty Protection Agency (HSPA) titled "The Romanian Electoral Scandal: Lessons in Sovereignty Protection". 

The piece critically assesses the outcome of the Romanian elections, emphasizing Hungary’s concerns about external influence on democratic processes and calls for immediate measures to safeguard national sovereignty. While the HSPA presents its arguments about foreign interference and the digital domain’s vulnerabilities, the narrative serves a dual purpose: seemingly reinforcing the importance of protecting elections while laying the groundwork for potential regulatory overreach.

Comparing the CCP and Western social media companies

The Hungarian Authority, set up to ‘ensure Hungary’s sovereignty’ from foreign interference (except for the most apparent Chinese and Russian meddling in Hungarian affairs)seems to be acting as the mouthpiece of the government and making the claim that western social media companies are similar to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

Although Hungary is part of NATO and the EU, the government has actively pursued the politics of forming partnerships with Putin’s Russia and the Chinese government. Thus, it is no surprise that the HSPA says that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok exert disproportionate influence over the public sphere, like state-controlled propaganda systems.

They argue that social media sites use algorithms to determine what information users see, wielding immense influence over public discourse. According to Hungary, there is a monopoly of western and globalist powers over user data, which is used to manipulate the electorate.

The accusations of foreign interference have become so strong that sovereignty has become a primary concern in many countries, and political parties have sprung up to make it the number one item on their agenda. However, they don’t mind Russian involvement in political campaigns on their soil regarding defeating their opponents. Moreover, Hungary frequently accuses these platforms of ideological bias and censorship and uses this strategy efficiently in its anti-establishment campaigns.

There is one thing, however, that seems to be forgotten. Platforms run by companies based in liberal democracies operate within competitive and largely decentralized markets, whereas the CCP’s control is absolute and state driven.

Speculating on Hungary’s Intentions

The HSPA’s focus on foreign interference and digital sovereignty might appear benign, but it raises vital questions about the Hungarian government’s intentions. We may wonder whether this narrative could be a precursor to tighter social media controls in the run-up to the next election in 2026.

Now that the Hungarian government, after 14 years of almost total control, is seeing a new opponent rise in the polls and even overtake the ruling party, it is not surprising that it tries to come up with solutions to suppress free speech on the very platform where it seems to be losing the battle. We have seen the Orban government becoming very innovative in the past when it came to finding the means to change laws to its advantage or curb the possibilities of its opponents. It seems now that this stunt serves this purpose very well.

First of all, by framing social media sites as a threat and saying that they are the means for foreign involvement in the name of “protecting democracy,” the Hungarian government laid the groundwork for emergency measures. Unfortunately, this would not be the first time the Hungarian government would turn to this method, and this next step could be temporary or permanent restrictions during election periods.

Since Hungary's public space is almost state-controlled, these social media platforms are the last hope for voices of dissent. The opposition relies heavily on these platforms, and a clampdown would make the elections even more unfair as it would silence most of the government's critics.

However, the Hungarian government has excelled in another aspect in the past decade: testing the waters and the voters. Political decisions have been solely made based on constant polling of the public, which means that it is possible that with this article, Orban wants to see how the public reacts domestically and what reactions to stricter social media controls can be expected internationally.

Should such measures come to pass, they will likely be framed as efforts to ensure “fair elections” and protect voters from foreign meddling. However, the broader implications for democratic freedoms and open discourse cannot be ignored. Suppressing platforms that allow free speech under the guise of sovereignty protection would mirror the very autocratic tendencies Hungary has been pursuing.