While Hamas Attacks, X Has An Identity Crisis
X has spent the last 15-odd years turning itself into a powerful tool for information dissemination, shaping public opinion and global discourse while pretending it has no responsibility for the outcomes. In many ways, X and its kin are the agora of modern society, where individuals and entities express, debate, and challenge ideas.
But the unprovoked attacks and atrocities by Hamas (side note — I’m not sure why we all have to keep referring to the attacks as “unprovoked” as though there could ever be a reasonable provocation for outright murder) have catapulted X’s role as an informational force vs an informational source into the spotlight, revealing an ongoing struggle with its identity — is X a platform or a publisher?
This distinction holds profound implications for the circulation of information, especially when contentious or false narratives are concerned amidst geopolitical crises.
X’s Stance on Neutrality
Historically, X has championed itself as an open, impartially managed forum, a digital common ground where users generate and exchange content. It vehemently argues against being held to a publisher’s standards, emphasising its role as a neutral conduit for information exchange. This distinction, if upheld, absolves it from the onus of monitoring or verifying the veracity of the content shared on its platform.
But the algorithmically boosted or choked flow of information, especially during geopolitical tensions, conflicts and crises, can foster the dissemination of misinformation. The Hamas attacks exemplified this; European officials and other stakeholders have raised alarms over unchecked, misleading content being allowed to go viral, circulating and replicating endlessly on X. Despite alerts from authorities and digital rights groups, contentious posts, driving thousands of likes, shares and comments, remain accessible, demonstrating X’s blatant lack of commitment to curbing the misinformation surfaced and driven by a platform designed to pursue and amplify viral attention, and a nonchalant attitude towards any potential ramifications for global politics and social discourse.
Technological Curation and Editorial Influence
X’s modus operandi reveals a level of editorial influence that contradicts its claim of neutrality. Its algorithms, which dictate the visibility and promotion of tweets (and yes, I’m still going to call them tweets; I’ll refer to them as Xeets when the world ends) reflect a form of technological curation. By adjusting algorithms to favour “newsworthy” accounts without requisite verification or transparency, Twitter — oh, for fuck’s sake — X steps into the role of an editor, influencing global discourse through a veil of opaque AI systems. This editorial underpinning, driven by algorithms, places X in a position akin to a publisher.
The murky waters of editorial influence usher in an era of ethical responsibility. If X’s technology performs editorial functions, the platform inherits a duty towards ensuring accurate information dissemination, much like traditional news outlets. There is an expectation of accountability that accompanies media firms, which are deemed responsible for the content they disseminate. This ethical responsibility extends to ensuring that the platform does not become a vessel for misinformation or propaganda, especially during sensitive geopolitical situations — such as a cabal of gangsters slaughtering innocent civilians at a music festival.
The Road Ahead: Embracing Accountability
X’s identity crisis is emblematic of a larger debate surrounding the role and responsibility of social media in modern society. As a steward of global discourse, it stands at a juncture where it must reconcile its technological design with the ethical imperative of combating misinformation. This calls for a reevaluation of its algorithms or the introduction of robust content moderation mechanisms. X needs a shift towards clearer policies and values-driven technological design; without it, the platform will entirely abandon responsible information dissemination.
Accepting responsibility as a publisher doesn’t entail an abandonment of free speech ideals; rather, it requires X to either stop fucking around and decide on a clear, balanced approach in navigating the complex terrain of global information exchange via a clear, moderated algorithm, or stop fucking around and abandon its algorithmic aspirations entirely. Transparency, accountability, and a commitment to ethical principles are not optional features in either scenario, but there is no third scenario.
X’s identity crisis amidst the Hamas attacks accentuates a pressing issue facing social media giants today. The amalgam of technological curation and editorial responsibility necessitates rethinking the traditional platform versus publisher binary.
As X navigates this intricate landscape, embracing its true identity entails a delicate balance of ethical responsibility and adherence to free speech principles applied through a lens of wisdom — rather than free speech posturing that amounts to an engagement chasing free-for-all.
steadily decreasing payoff in terms of user enthusiasm and engagement.
