The recent departure of media such as ‘The Guardian’ and ‘La Vanguardia’ from X (formerly Twitter) has revived the debate about the influence and toxicity of Elon Musk’s social network. This media argues that This exodus, added to Musk’s apparent support for Donald Trump during the US elections, leads us to ask ourselves: What future awaits X? Are there any viable alternatives? Are these alternatives really better?
contention algorithm
The transition to X under Musk’s leadership has been the subject of much criticism. The tycoon has admitted that he manipulates algorithms to favor the visibility of certain content, and prioritizes content that stays on the platform the longest, Which in turn translates into higher advertising revenues. According to experts such as Albert Cuesta, a journalist specializing in technology, this practice has contributed to the proliferation of toxic content and the invisibility of recognized sources that do not generate as much interaction, leads naciodigital.cat.
However, Cuesta also argues that toxicity is responsible for Those who do not mostly do not use the tools available to filter and block objectionable content. Option to maintain the chronology determined by the algorithm, Instead of a “Follow” tab, it exposes users to a greater amount of toxic content.
Freedom of expression versus corporate responsibility
Journalist and social media expert Susana Pérez Soler believes outrage over X’s drift is unwise. It argues that, as a private company, X has the freedom to operate according to its own norms, protected by freedom of expression. According to Pérez, the responsibility falls on users, who must decide whether to continue using the platform or look for alternatives.
Media migration: trend or opportunity?
Although Pérez Soler considers the departure of ‘The Guardian’ and ‘La Vanguardia’ an “opportunistic” decision, he agrees with Cuesta that the move could be positive in the long term. The departure of these media outlets, besides benefiting the media in terms of reputation, may also provide space for restraint and constructive dialogue in the X. and web traffic.
Cuesta sees this situation as an opportunity for the media to strengthen their own communication channels, such as newsletters, mobile applications and groups on platforms such as Telegram or WhatsApp, to establish a more direct relationship with their audiences. This change in focus could lead to a business model less dependent on clicks and more focused on audience loyalty.
looking for options
If the trend of leaving X continues, there are many alternatives that seek to offer a healthier and more creative experience in the field of social networks.
- Mastodon: This decentralized platform, based on free software, is organized into independent interconnected communities. Moderation is done by the users themselves, making it easier to control toxic content. Mastodon is funded by donations, sponsorships and grants, and has rejected takeover offers while maintaining its independence.
- threads: The user base of threads related to Instagram is quite large. It allows posts longer than X and provides discussion forums to encourage interaction between users. Unlike X, Threads prioritizes the relationship between content and its superview.
- blue sky: Created by a former Twitter engineer, Bluesky is also committed to decentralization, giving users more autonomy. Despite its initial commitment to moderation, its founder left the project because he believed it was following a similar path to X.
future of social networks
Despite the existence of these alternatives, Perez is skeptical about their ability to dethrone SolarX, arguing that they lack the critical mass of users that Musk’s platform boasts. The future of X, and the social media landscape in general, will largely depend on the evolution of user preferences and the ability of alternative platforms to provide truly different and engaging experiences. The X is likely to continue its drift to the right, while the Alternative is struggling to assert itself for constructive and respectful dialogue. The choice, as always, is in the hands of the users.
