Spain's Belarra Proposes Public Social Network to Replace X

Belarra Proposes Public Social Network to Replace X

Can the State build its own social network and compete with X? That is the question surrounding Ione Belarra's proposal. In a message shared during the referenced debate, she argues that "Spain needs a public social network" because the problem with X is that it is "in the hands of an ultra-rightist, a dangerous Nancy." The statement, attributed to the leader in a tweet collected by Wall Street Wolverine, has triggered a discussion mixing economics, censorship, and technical antiestéticasibility. The proposal comes without figures, a funding model, or a timeline. Only with the diagnosis.

What Exactly Does Belarra Propose and Why Does It Generate Rejection?

The premise is simple: if X is privately owned and those owners are disliked, the State should offer a public alternative. The argument relies on the idea that a platform controlled by a private individual can condition public debate. Against this lies distrust of the public sector: some recall that attempts at "hate-free" social networks lasted months and ended with their promoters arguing among themselves. The most repeated criticism is not ideological but based on incentives: a public social network would have to compete with a private one that already has critical mass, and no one has explained how to achieve that without forcing people to use it.

The Cost of Building a Social Network from Scratch

The comparison circulating in the debate is Elon Musk, who paid $44 billion for X. This figure is used as a baseline: if a private individual paid that much for an existing network, building one from scratch and competing with it would cost significantly more. The exact figure is not on the table, but the order of magnitude is. And there appears the most repeated argument: any public social network would be funded by taxes, would have to justify its spending, and would compete with platforms that do not bear that cost. The question is not whether it can be created, but who would use it.

Who Would Use a Public Social Network and Why Critical Mass Is the Problem

A social network is valuable not for its code, but for its people. This is the most repeated point. It is argued that alternative attempts already exist — BlueSky is mentioned — and have failed to attract X users. The reason would not be technical, but visibility-related: those who want to be read go where the audience is, even if that audience is hostile. If this is true, a public network would face the same problem, worsened by its official status: less spontaneity, more bureaucracy. Some argue the real goal is not to compete, but to have a space where the narrative is not questioned.

Censorship in the Background: Who Decides What Can Be Said?

The core of the rejection is not cost, but control. It is argued that a public social network would end up with moderation criteria defined by the government in power, which is incompatible with freedom of expression. The response to this argument is that private networks already moderate content, and their criteria are also arbitrary. The problem is that neither side accepts the other's criteria. The discussion shifts to whether the State should have its own platform or if regulating existing ones is enough. There is no consensus, and the debate remains stuck there.

International Context: Countries That Already Block X

The debate mentions that X is banned or blocked in several countries, including China, and that France and Germany have moved toward requiring identification to use social media. This data is used for two opposing points: to say Spain is late in regulating, or to say Spain is heading toward the same path. The comparison with France and Germany is made without detail: no specific regulation, scope, or applicability to all platforms is specified. It is cited as a trend, not as a model. And the trend, in any case, points to more control, not less.

What Peine with Previous Attempts at "Hate-Free" Social Networks?

The most repeated precedent is that of networks presented as safe alternatives that ended up empty. It is mentioned that their promoters returned to X because they needed an audience. This is the strongest argument against the proposal: it is not that it cannot be done, but that it was already tried and did not work. The conclusion drawn is that the problem is not the platform, but the people. If no one wants to be on a network without debate, no public network will fix it. Within this framework, Belarra's proposal reads as a wish, not a plan.

---

The proposal remains where it started: without figures, without a model, and without users. Only with the conviction that the problem is who controls X. And with the reasonable doubt that the problem might rather be that no one wants to leave.