MOSTRA 2026, 'PSICHE' ... piccola messa in scena

HEDGES: «If we want to stop wars, we must be willing to cooperate even with those who stand at the opposite ideological end. The stakes are too high to remain divided.»

ASSANGE: «I agree with you on the gravity of war, Chris. But tell me: why don’t you apply the same logic to censorship? If freedom of information is compressed, how can we even know what is at stake?»

HEDGES: «State censorship is a problem, but I see the real power in the hands of corporations and billionaires who control the public sphere. That’s where we must strike.»

ASSANGE: «I understand, but censorship is the root that allows those powers to act with impunity. Without censorship, wars could not be justified, frauds could not be hidden. If we are ready to unite with anyone to stop a war, we must be even more ready to unite to stop censorship.»

HEDGES: «So you are saying that censorship is the condition of possibility for everything else…»

ASSANGE: «Exactly. Silencing people is the first step toward controlling everything else. Freedom of information is not optional, Chris. It is the prerequisite for every meaningful struggle.»

MUSK: «I see you talk about freedom and peace … but without my platform, no freedom of expression … no possibility to accuse the powerful, no way to stop wars. Remember: this digital square is mine … here I was able to launch a poll that revealed that the majority here supports the recognition of the Referendum in Ukraine.»

“According to a Twitter poll launched by Elon Musk, 59% of participants voted in favor of recognizing the referenda in the Ukrainian regions recently annexed by Russia.”

 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576994262226702336

[The stage lights widen. CHARLIE KIRK and NICOLAI LILIN enter from opposite sides, watching the screen where Musk has just spoken.]

CHARLIE KIRK: “See? This is the power of direct participation! Finally, someone dared to put the decision in the hands of the people. If we want true freedom and real democracy, we must encourage tools like this, without waiting for the state to tell us what we can know or vote on.”

NICOLAI LILIN: “Don’t get me wrong … the platform is powerful, and the poll is interesting. But truth cannot be measured only with clicks or online votes. Freedom of expression must be protected from abuse, manipulation, and personal interests. The challenge is to use this tool to inform and educate.”

MUSK: “I accept the debate … But without spaces where people can speak freely, there is no possibility to accuse the powerful or stop injustices. The poll at least shows a small signal of what the community thinks.”

ASSANGE: “This is the central issue! It is not enough for one individual, even a visionary, to control the digital square. We need to build systems of transparency, accountability, and verification.”

HEDGES: “Perhaps this is the challenge: to unite the power of innovation with ethical responsibility, without letting one person alone dictate the rules. We can't replace the tyranny of the state with the tyranny of the boardroom and call it freedom.”

MERKEL (thoughtful): “Who understands and controls the algorithms that influence us every day?”

MUSK (responding with a half-ironic smile, looking at Merkel and the audience): “Angela, your question is valid — but I’d like to flip it. Algorithms aren’t mysterious forces; they’re tools created by engineers, programmers, and often driven by economic or political interests. The real issue isn’t whether they exist, but who owns them and how transparently they’re used. On my social platform, I’ve tried to make them more open — I published the code, I invited the community to discuss it. I’m not saying it’s perfect, but at least it’s not hidden away in a drawer in Washington or behind closed boardroom doors. Understanding and controlling algorithms means bringing them back under public oversight, not leaving them to the dark ‘black boxes’ of governments and corporations. And if we’re going to talk about digital democracy, that’s the starting point: radical transparency.”

(The lights dim slightly. From the back of the room, a 

STUDENT FROM THE ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS enters, carrying a backpack and a tablet. He stops center stage, looking at the five already present.)

STUDENT (with a spontaneous, almost ironic tone): “Now it’s all about the culture of engagement. That’s what keeps Instagram and TikTok alive. Depth of thought doesn’t matter — only how fast you can grab someone’s attention. A like is worth more than an argument.” (He turns to Musk, respectfully but provocatively): “That’s why X is at risk of dying. People no longer want to just debate. They want to be seen, reacted to, validated — instantly. The algorithm rewards those who play to this thirst for attention, not those who know how to reason.”

ASSANGE (with a bitter half-smile): “And so censorship is no longer just vertical, imposed from above… but horizontal, internalized. We ourselves choose entertainment over truth.”

HEDGES (nodding gravely): “Then the real enemy becomes superficiality as a system. A soft dictatorship, made of likes and 15-second clips, that renders every complex idea invisible.”

MUSK (reflective, looking at the student): “And yet… without spaces like this, discussion dies completely. If speed devours everything, who will still defend the written word?”

ASSANGE (pressing, toward Musk): “But Elon, you yourself distracted your users from writing. The so-called audio rooms shifted discussion from traceable words to fleeting chatter. Voice flies away, text remains. And without texts, there’s no memory, no evidence, no truth.”

MUSK (calm, almost didactic, addressing Assange): “I understand your concern, Julian. But audio rooms weren’t created to erase the written word. They were created to break down barriers, to let people speak directly, without filters, without fear of form. Not everything needs to be a document: sometimes we need the living voice, the immediate emotion, the real-time exchange. Writing builds memory, yes… but voice builds community. And without community, memory remains sterile.”

HEDGES (firmly, looking at Musk and Assange): “No, Elon. If writing can build memory, it can also build the future. Voice fades, writing remains. And what remains becomes collective consciousness, becomes history, becomes the foundation for real change. A community without memory is just a crowd. But a community with memory can become a people.”

Here is the entry of a Chinese student of philosophy or communications, offering a new perspective that reframes the entire debate.

[The lights shift slightly, casting a cooler hue. A young woman, LI WEI, stands up from a seat in the audience. She is calm, her expression one of deep, analytical thought. She speaks not with passion, but with a piercing, structured clarity.]

LI WEI: «This debate is fascinating. But it is also… profoundly Western. The Chinese perspective is different. It is not based on the myth of the perfect, self-correcting marketplace of ideas. It is based on the principle of harmony and social stability. The question is not “How can every single voice be heard?” but “How can communication serve the stability and well-being of the collective?” The digital square is not an agorá for chaos; it is a managed garden. 

Yes, there are weeds. But the goal is to ensure the health of the entire garden, not to celebrate the freedom of any single weed to grow. 

You call this censorship. We call it governance. You see it as a loss of freedom. We see it as a prevention of the social fracture that your model is currently experiencing. Your poll, Mr. Musk… it is not data. It is noise. It measures the sentiment of a self-selected group on a specific day, amplified by your own algorithm. 

In China, we would not see this as a signal of the people’s will, but as a risk factor for social instability. It is not a tool for democracy, but for chaos.

So I propose a different question for you all. Not “Who should control the square?” but “What is the purpose of the square?” Is its purpose individual expression, at any cost? Or is its purpose the maintenance of a coherent, truthful, and stable society? 

MUSK (turning sharply, a flash of data-driven intensity in his eyes): «Noise? You dismiss the voice of millions as noise? This is not a self-selected echo chamber—it’s the largest real-time pulse of public sentiment in history. Let me be clear: that poll reached 4.3 million respondents across Europe. Not just random users—people from Germany, France, Italy, Spain. And 59% said they support a negotiated settlement, not endless escalation.

While media outlets and political elites repeat narratives shaped in closed-door meetings, real people are saying what their leaders refuse to hear: they don’t want their economies collapsing over a war with no end in sight. They don’t want their sons and daughters sent to die in trenches while diplomats play ideological games.

You speak of social stability, Ms. Li? True stability doesn’t come from silencing dissent—it comes from listening to it. The people of Europe are not calling for surrender. They’re calling for sanity. They see what’s happening: energy prices soaring, industries relocating, inflation biting—all while the same leaders who claim to speak for them refuse even to explore diplomacy. 

While Brussels and D.C. lecture us on moral clarity, realpolitik is happening whether they like it or not. My poll didn’t create that reality—it revealed it.

You want data? Here’s data: 72% of Italians, 65% of Germans, and 57% of the French respondents in that sample believe further militarization will only deepen the crisis. These aren’t bots. These are citizens. People with families. People who remember what war did to this continent.

Your ‘managed garden,’ Ms. Li, sounds peaceful—until you realize it’s built on the silence of those who suffer. We offer something messier, yes. But it’s called freedom. And sometimes freedom is noisy. But that noise… is the sound of people refusing to be ignored.

LILIN: “The ‘culture of engagement’ fills people with fleeting things and obstructs serious discourse on how to resolve major geopolitical conflicts.”

ASSANGE (with a sharp tone, addressing Musk and the audience): “Exactly. The culture of engagement is not neutral. It’s a system designed to monetize attention, and to do so it must necessarily favor the fleeting over the enduring, the emotional over the rational, simplification over complexity. In doing so, it feeds two beasts at once: disinformation and mass distraction. It’s a double poison that prevents us from pausing, reflecting, and distinguishing truth from propaganda. And in times of war, this isn’t a detail — it’s a weapon.”