Government, leave Musk's X (fka Twitter)

X is disruptive and malignant. X harbours and encourages multiple attacks on our liberal democracy.

X’s algorithms promote extreme opinions. People no longer connect with each other. There is no open and fruitful exchange of ideas. Deliberately created disruptive misinformation remains available and can be widely shared. Many accounts are non-human and serve only to spread misinformation. Much of the malice is algorithm-driven. X gives the Putins of this world a significant weapon for their attack on democracy.

Moreover, Musk does not comply with European regulation on many important points, including the fight against misinformation. Musk loudly declares his unwillingness to improve X in this regard. In his libertarian vision, non-interference is the only way. Libertarianism is a pathological denial of stubborn reality, often found in those who meet too little opposition and have too much money. By refusing to intervene, Musk leaves the public space of X to Russian trolls and deluded fantasists and fanatics.

Are there benefits to X? Of course: X gives every citizen a voice. That is a significant contribution to public debate. But in that respect X is not unique.

X does have one unique feature: it is dominant. Everyone uses X. The Dutch government uses X too. The Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst (Government Information Service) loves it. The municipalities, individual ministries, caretaker Prime Minister Rutte: all use X. And, of course, all journalists use X. It is the channel where information and opinions are made public first. In essence that dominance is the only reason X is still used, despite all its disadvantages. The biggest player exerts a pull of its own.

But important parties do not actually need X. Journalists and interested parties will find them anyway. The best example of doing perfectly well without X is Donald Trump, who created a platform of his own with Truth Social (2 million active users) in order to stay dominant in public debate without too much effort.

Does the government need X? No. The government holds such an important information position that anyone who feels the need to know what it says will find those statements wherever it makes them. The government can therefore perfectly well communicate through channels other than X. Through other, similar social media, such as Mastodon, or even through Facebook (a medium that, of course, has issues of its own). There is no reason to stick with X, and to go on using a medium that undermines your own legitimacy.

In fact, given the illegitimate nature of the medium, the question is whether the government should not leave X altogether. By continuing to use X, the government becomes, in a way, complicit in sustaining the flow of misinformation and extremism. That cannot, should not and need not happen.

The government must therefore stop using X and move government communication to another, less malignant platform, such as Mastodon. That has other benefits as well. Given the importance of government communication, no journalist can afford not to create an account on that other platform too. The same goes for all other interested parties and stakeholders. Many others will switch along with the government. That will give a boost to the new, better platform and, perhaps even more importantly, reduce the impact of X. Hopefully a form of communication will emerge that develops into a fully fledged, more democratic and legitimate alternative to the broken and malicious X.

So, government: do what needs to be done. Dump X.

DO NOT USE FOR AI

NoAI