The World After Twitter (X): What’s Next?
We have six forms of power, though only four are in everyday awareness.
The first is legislative power. The second is executive power. The third, independent of the first two, is judicial power, meant to offer unbiased judgments within the boundaries of existing law. The fourth power comprises independent and professional media (objectivity is another matter), which hold all powers accountable and manage public communication. The fifth power is religion, irrespective of specific denominations. The proverbial “pulpit” is a powerful and influential channel because believers often don’t fully rationalize its influence. The sixth power is social media, which operates under principles distinct from professional press and is understood as reliable and quality journalism. Tabloids, for me, are not media.
Each of these six powers can interact with the others in various ways, which isn’t always beneficial to democratic processes. Historic examples include the “alliance of throne and altar,” representing a close collaboration between secular power (the throne) and religious authority (the altar). In such an alliance, state power and religious institutions support each other to consolidate societal influence and maintain authority. Throughout different eras, monarchs, and church hierarchies collaborated to legitimize their positions mutually, often subjecting society to a unified religious-political order. The “altar” leveraged the uncritical faith of its followers, while the “throne” wielded executive power and legislative authority.
In this context, today, we could discuss an “alliance of the throne and the network,” where the first and second powers join with the sixth. This could create a hazardous sociotechnical blend.
On October 25, the Wall Street Journal reported that Elon Musk had been holding regular, secret meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin and senior Kremlin officials, including Sergei Kiriyenko, since 2022. These discussions covered personal, business, and geopolitical issues. Russia reportedly pressured Musk, threatening him to prevent the activation of his Starlink network over Taiwan as a favor to China. Musk’s ties with Russia have raised concerns in the United States, especially as his company, SpaceX, is a crucial partner to the US government, giving Musk access to classified documents.
Musk is also accused of spreading Russian propaganda and changing his stance on the Ukraine war, promoting a peace plan favorable to Russia that would involve ceding Crimea and keeping Ukraine neutral. In 2022, Musk reportedly informed Ian Bremmer, head of the Eurasia Group think tank, about a conversation with Putin about Russia’s Ukraine goals.
Musk’s contacts with Russia are reportedly kept secret. However, his actions, including involvement in US elections and Donald Trump’s campaign (which also allegedly had secret talks with Putin), have stirred controversy. Musk denied the allegations, claiming he spoke with Putin only once in 2021 about space.
Let’s recall that Elon Musk bought Twitter on October 27, 2022, for $44 billion, ending a months-long process that began in April 2022 when Musk made his purchase offer. Since then, the platform, now known as X, has undergone significant financial and operational changes. Musk used his funds, external investments, and bank loans to finance the purchase. About $27 billion came from his resources, $5.2 billion from investors like Larry Ellison and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, and $13 billion from bank loans. In March 2023, Musk estimated X’s value to be under $20 billion, a drop of over 50% from the purchase price. The loans generate over $1 billion in annual interest. The banks that funded the deal have faced significant losses due to the devalued debt, making this transaction one of the worst for the banking sector since the 2008 financial crisis. Musk reduced staff by about 80% to cut operating expenses, though such cuts may impact the company’s ability to innovate and maintain service quality. Since Musk’s takeover, X (formerly Twitter) has faced considerable financial challenges, including a decline in value, high debt costs, and declining ad revenue.
The fundamental question is: when will Elon’s costly toy crumble? And what will follow?
Since its inception, Twitter (X) has become a real-time communication platform where users can react to global events instantly. Journalists, politicians, and celebrities, in particular, used it to communicate with audiences in real time, drawing an international audience interested in quick access to information. The platform attracted people interested in politics, culture, and current events, who could freely comment and share views — the introduction of hashtags and trending sections allowed for topic grouping and created open discussion threads. Hashtags enabled users to quickly find information on specific events and engage in popular topics. The platform became attractive for politicians, celebrities, journalists, and brands, which used it for direct communication. Twitter was crucial in organizing protests and social movements like the Arab Spring, Black Lives Matter, and other global campaigns. Rapid information spread enabled real-time coordination of actions.
And today? Notable figures might write “good morning” only to be instantly flooded with hate from anonymous accounts or troll farms. Politicians’ fiery discussions devolve into classic “shitstorms,” to the delight of tabloid journalists, who craft the exchange into another article. Communication, in the traditional sense, has ceased to exist. One-way messaging dominates, and occasional debates arise about whether X is a platform for exchanging opinions or political positioning, as in “the President wrote on Twitter that…”
For $44 billion, Elon Musk gained access to the minds of the world’s elites. It would be one thing if he left it at that. He’s the first to begin using this potential for global communication for his particular interests.
An owner with his assets can do anything. Today, he produces chips; tomorrow, jam. However, global, influential media, with a list of accounts belonging to significant politicians, journalists, business people, and experts worldwide, is not a chip factory. These media shape the world’s image, reinforced by journalists who transmit the message further.
Twitter (now X) is considered an influential medium, and its importance has grown over the years, particularly in politics, media, and social movements. Like other social media platforms, it has a global reach. This trait is tough for traditional media, which operate within specific market segments or in information bubbles. While Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok have gone global, only X has amassed such an influential community worldwide. At the head of this community is Elon Musk, who either succumbs to Russian influence, controls it, or follows intentions we cannot fully understand and can only speculate on.
Media is a platform for information, events, and opinion exchange. But we forget they’ve also become a space for constructing narratives. Narratives about politicians’ personalities shape whom we vote for. Today, as Polish viewers, we watch whom Americans choose. Paradoxically, the future and risks for Eastern Europe may now hinge on the vote of a corn farmer in Iowa, a cattle rancher in Nebraska, or a wheat warehouse worker in Kansas.
The media once primarily acted as intermediaries, conveying facts and reports and leaving interpretation to the audience. Today, they increasingly craft their versions of reality, deliberately selecting topics, words, and contexts to create a particular image of the world. Examples include deliberately spotlighting specific topics, manipulating tone, or choosing experts with particular views to reinforce a desired narrative.
Today’s perceptions of politicians often hinge less on their platforms or achievements and more on their “narrative” — the image constructed by the media. A politician’s personality, character, demeanor, and even speaking style become crucial elements that the media highlight, shaping our political choices. A politician’s image as a charismatic leader, “man of the people,” or “defender of values” is typically purposefully crafted to attract certain voter groups.
Media-created images frequently appeal to emotions — fear, hope, pride, or security. In this way, a politician’s narrative resonates emotionally, which is especially effective because people are likelier to vote based on emotions than policy analysis. We vote for politicians not because we share specific views, but because the surrounding narrative evokes positive feelings or reinforces our identity.
This dominance of narrative means that politicians’ actual achievements fade into the background. A highly accomplished politician might be portrayed negatively due to a single misstep, while another, less competent, gains popularity through a positive narrative. Thus, media can, intentionally or unintentionally, manipulate public opinion, risking leaders chosen based on image rather than real qualifications.
Could the democratic world, in the form of its leaders, abandon communication on “X,” and could they do so collectively? If so, what would their alternative be? Indeed, not TikTok, Facebook, or Instagram, given their different nature. Perhaps the time has come for a global social media platform that is 100% reliable, requiring users to register with their real names and ID verification (as on LinkedIn). “X,” while still influential, is drifting toward becoming the most manipulative platform globally, increasingly dominated by troll farms, bots, and adult content, interspersed with posts from the Pope, Presidents, prime ministers, royalty, leading journalists, and politicians. Such a stew of content, opinions, and narratives, sold under the guise of “freedom of expression,” has nothing to do with it.
True freedom of speech means authenticity, credibility, and real accountability for one’s words.
