My Independent Thoughts on a Social Media Platform Full of Potential Yet Raising Valid Concerns for Thought Leaders and Practitioners Globally
I have been using Twitter since its beginning. I experienced its ups and downs. My first account was accidentally suspended in 2020. I was disappointed, but I decided to create a new one and joined X Premium because the platform looked serendipitous and good for getting news quickly. It is faster than any other source.
Last year, I was having dinner with my neighbors when we heard an unexpected noise. The kids immediately checked their phones and said that, according to X, an earthquake had just occurred.
Within moments, thousands of people were tweeting about it. News spreads instantly on the platform, and in some cases, serious incidents are reported before even the authorities, like the police or firefighters, are aware. Isn’t this an excellent source for reporters?
Since Elon Musk acquired the platform, I have liked it more because he promised to remove censorship. I thought journalists would like this change.
But interestingly, today, I learned something unexpected about journalists who were unhappy with X. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump revealed it before anyone else and asked what members thought about it.
According to a tweet from Trump News, “The European Federation of Journalists representing 300,000+ journalists have just announced they are leaving X and will no longer be posting.”
This announcement caught my attention immediately. As I have been using X (formerly Twitter) for years, both before and after Elon Musk’s acquisition, I find this development interesting and perplexing.
X is a large platform with vast potential. It offers instant access to global news without censorship. It is a dream and a great opportunity for journalists. So, I wondered why they were leaving.
I had a brief chat with a few of my journalist friends earlier today. The common sentiment is that the current political situation makes scientists, including Nobel Laureates and journalists, concerned.
After that chat, I quickly checked my newsfeed and read related articles to inform you and give you quick perspectives based on my understanding. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) mentioned several reasons for their departure.
They claim X has become a “machine of disinformation and propaganda” under Musk’s leadership. They expressed concerns about Musk’s public alliance with Donald Trump, particularly as he begins his second term as President.
This did not surprise me as peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature and even Nobel Laureates started raising concerns about the new Trump administration. Now, journalists are joining the bandwagon. I can understand why these issues disturb them.
However, I struggled to understand why they wanted to leave X and not continue to share their concerns, as it is a free-speech platform. Then I noticed that freedom of speech also brings other issues that might affect the reputation of journalists like other professionals.
Nature published a podcast that some scientists received significant issues on the platform. But it was not exclusive to X as similar things happen on Facebook, Quora, or Reddit too.
Musk introduced freedom of speech, which I admire. However, the platform also started having harmful content like hate speech. Some voices seemed to be suppressed; therefore, they decided to leave and look for alternative platforms, which I covered in a recent interview.
But is it the platform itself, or is it who dominates the conversation now? Interestingly, Musk made the platform more accessible to those who are blocked from seeing the content of others for the same freedom of speech.
This means that even if you block someone, they can still see your content, but at least they cannot interact with you. However, some like this idea, and others mentioned that this causes privacy and security concerns to some people.
When Musk took over X, it felt like an open space for global dialogue, sharing ideas on any topic, breaking news, and creating global connections. Journalists, scientists, activists, and the public shared their thoughts and sentiments.
Despite its flaws, X offered something unique to the members. For me, immediate access to diverse perspectives and uncensored conversations bring real value. Some people use it as a therapeutic method by tweeting their thoughts and feelings to vent.
Musk’s approach to free speech has allowed many voices, including controversial ones, to flourish on the platform. While this might sound like a win for openness, it has also led to an increase in disinformation and hate speech, which concerned authentic members, including journalists and scientists.
Scientists, for example, have reported being targeted by online trolls when sharing their research. I have seen threads where researchers and journalists are bombarded with hostility for presenting facts.
Might this be one of the reasons journalists are leaving?
Or is it about Trump?
The timing of the EFJ’s announcement is interesting. With Trump’s close presidential inauguration and Musk’s public support for him, I guess it is one of the main reasons.
Some members believe that Trump and his supporters dominate X, using the platform to rally, entertain, and inform. His frequent posts, amplified by Elon Musk’s engagement, have created a space where his worldviews feel dominant, inescapable, and sometimes overwhelming.
For journalists who may already feel alienated by his dominance, this platform might feel less like free speech and more like an echo chamber from selected perspectives.
What puzzles me most is how a platform with so much potential where you can reach a global audience in seconds and speak without censorship has become so divisive.
Why would journalists, whose job is to inform and challenge the status quo and global issues concerning us, walk away from such a powerful tool?
I asked myself several questions like:
Is it the volume of hate speech and disinformation?
Is it the dominance of a particular political group?
Or is it exhaustion from maintaining credibility in an increasingly hostile space?
I wonder what this means for the future of X.
The decision of 300,000 journalists to leave X reflects serious issues. I am not concerned about numbers, as 300K is like a drop in the ocean. What concerns me is the harsh reaction from a professional group.
Journalism, like science, requires trust, rigor, and accountability. If journalists feel that X no longer keeps these values, it is time to question the platform’s nature and future.
I still see potential so X can evolve into a place where free speech coexists with accountability. However, that requires supportive and tolerant leadership that is willing to address hate speech and disinformation without undermining diverse and valid perspectives.
My journalist friends said it also requires humility as Musk and the dominant leaders seemed to act arrogant, saying my way or highway.
As a long-time user of X, I am confused and need clarification. I value the platform for its value. However, I also see its challenges. The EFJ’s decision raises valid concerns about the balance between free speech and responsible engagement.
I wrote this story to reflect on how social media shapes conversations and interactions. As users, we have a role to play in shaping this space into one where diverse voices can be heard without concerns, judgments, labeling, defamation, or hate speech.
We need unity more than ever in these challenging times on this problematic planet. Divisiness will make our challenges worse. All of us face pain and suffering, and when we unite and share our painful feelings, they can be eased. Let’s meditate and find viable solutions to this crisis.
What can we do collectively for unity? Why do you think journalists, especially from Europe, decided to leave the platform? What can platform management do to address these types of issues and maintain unity in democratic principles, allowing diverse voices without dominating a specific group? I look forward to your thoughts.
Related stories that may give a background on the healthcare issues:
Why Historical TIME Magazine Named Trump as the Person of the Year
Is It Possible to Ban Cancer-Causing Food in the US or Any Other Country?
75+ Nobel Laureates Signed a Letter Demanding Senators NOT to Confirm RFK Jr as HHS Secretary.
Trump Dropped a Sweet Bombshell About Our Metabolic Health on X Today 💣
Why Trump’s Consideration of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for NIH Director Brings Me Hope
WTF: What Happens When “Nature” Speaks on Politics at the Wrong Time and Wrong Place
Why Is America Helping Other Countries While Deeply in Debt? Asked by Elon Musk
Thank you for reading my perspectives. I wish you a healthy and happy life.
Why Gaslighting Matters in the Healthcare Sector & How to Deal with It Effectively
From awareness to action: Confronting gaslighting in medicine, empowering patients, and empathizing with providersmedium.com
Leave a Reply