The Standard We Tweet Around is the Standard We Accept

X, formerly Twitter, once hailed as the Internet's town square, has become a distorted mirror of that ideal under Elon Musk's reign. But was this ever an apt descriptor in the first place?

We wouldn't silently pass by someone shouting racist or sexist abuse in a physical town square, Twitter twists our natural instinct to confront bigotry against us. Algorithms turn our outrage into engagement and engagement into amplification. Every tweet denouncing hatred inadvertently fuels its spread. Every well-meaning reply becomes another boost to the visibility of toxic content.

This is not just about a social media platform; it's about a fundamental shift in how information and misinformation propagate in our interconnected world — the town square analogy, comforting in its simplicity, crumbles in the face of this algorithmic reality. We find ourselves in a place where the very act of standing up against bigotry can perpetuate it, where our efforts to cleanse the digital environment may instead pollute it further.

Unchecked Spread of Harmful Rhetoric

Under Elon Musk's ownership, X has gained notoriety for allowing racism, bigotry, and sexism to thrive unchecked. The platform's selective enforcement of rules reveals a troubling double standard:

Musk declared "cisgender" a slur, yet allows the rampant use of words that society has long recognised as deeply harmful and offensive. Terms that the general public has, over decades, come to understand as damaging and hurtful and agreed to avoid in civil discourse are now resurfacing on X. Even more disturbing, these words are often used with a sense of cynical pride, as if breaking social taboos is a badge of honour rather than a step backward for civil society.

Meanwhile, posts violating rules for terms like "wingnut Republicans" and “weird” are taken down. This inconsistent policy enforcement demonstrates a biased approach that meddles in global policy and politics.

Real-World Consequences

The toxic environment fostered on X has tangible, often severe real-world impacts:

2024 Olympics Controversy: The platform amplified racial and social tensions surrounding Algerian boxer Imane Khelif and Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting. Despite both athletes being recognised as female by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), they faced a deluge of online abuse fueled by misinformation and anti-trans activists. Public figures like J.K. Rowling worsened the situation with tweets such as Khelif having "the smirk of a male who knows he's protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he's just punched in the head."

UK Riots: Racist and Islamophobic misinformation spread on X contributed to riots in the UK, resulting in looted and vandalised businesses, libraries, and mosques. Musk's statement that "civil war is inevitable" exacerbated these tensions. UK Justice Minister Heidi Alexander criticised Musk, stating, "use of language such as a 'civil war' is in no way acceptable." Musk's involvement escalated the situation:

Musk directly attacked UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, referring to him as "Two Tier Keir" in a series of posts on X. This referenced a conspiracy theory that police were treating white far-right "protesters" more harshly than minority groups.

He amplified unsubstantiated claims about different approaches to policing, echoing far-right figures like Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage. Musk's posts gave a larger platform to the rhetoric that led to subsequent violence.

Global Political Interference: Musk's provocative tweets about Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, including calling him a dictator and alleging drug trafficking, have heightened political tensions. Musk even proposed a physical fight with Maduro, stating, "If I win, he resigns as dictator of Venezuela. If he wins, I give him a free ride to Mars." This trivialises serious political issues and undermines democratic processes.

Hypocrisy and Selective Free Speech

Musk's stance on free speech reveals glaring inconsistencies, particularly in his dealings with advertisers and critics. His actions have shown an escalating pattern of confrontation and legal threats that contradict his self-proclaimed position as a free speech absolutist:

Initial Confrontation with Advertisers: When advertisers first expressed concerns about their ads appearing alongside racist, bigoted, and sexist content, Musk's response was aggressive and dismissive. At a New York Times DealBook Summit, he told advertisers who were pulling back from the platform to "Go fuck yourself" specifically calling out Disney CEO Bob Iger. He added, "Hey Bob, if you're in the audience, that's how I feel."

Escalation as Advertisers Pause Spending: The situation escalated when major advertisers, including Apple, Disney, IBM, and Comcast, paused their spending on X. Instead of addressing their concerns, Musk doubled down on his confrontational approach.

Threats Against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): In September 2023, Musk announced that X would file a "thermonuclear lawsuit" against the Anti-Defamation League. He baselessly accused the ADL of trying to "kill" X by scaring away advertisers, showcasing an aggressive approach to criticism.

Lawsuit Against Advertisers: Most recently, X has taken legal action against a group of advertisers and major companies, including Unilever, Mars, and CVS Health, accusing them of unlawfully agreeing to "boycott" the site. X claims these actions have deprived it of "billions of dollars" in revenue. Regarding this lawsuit, Musk tweeted: "We tried being nice for 2 years and got nothing but empty words. Now, it is war."

This aggressive stance contradicts Musk's self-proclaimed position as a free speech absolutist. If he truly believed in absolute free speech, wouldn't he respect the advertisers' right to choose where they spend their money and how to amplify their message? Instead, Musk's actions reveal that his version of "free speech" is selective at best and serves primarily to protect his own interests and biases.

By suing advertisers for exercising their right to choose where they spend their money, Musk contradicts his own principles of free market and free speech. It's a stark reminder that the standard we tweet around is indeed the standard we accept, and under Musk's leadership, that standard has fallen dangerously low.

The Paradox of Increased Government Censorship

Despite Musk's claims of combating government censorship, data reveals a stark increase in compliance with takedown requests under his leadership:

• Pre-Musk: Twitter complied with about 50% of government takedown requests.

• Post-Musk: Compliance rate jumped to over 80%.

Key examples:

1. Turkish Election (2023): Musk's Twitter banned accounts of President Erdogan's critics, including a Kurdish businessman and an investigative journalist.

2. India: Censored multiple journalists, including an entire BBC bureau, and a documentary critical of the government.

Contrast with pre-Musk Twitter:

In a previous Turkish election, Twitter refused to censor posts about corruption, citing the importance of political speech.

Transparency decline:

Twitter stopped sharing data on government takedowns in April 2023, as reported by a Harvard research lab.

This data directly contradicts Musk's rhetoric about free speech and government censorship, raising questions about his true commitment to these principles.

The Empire's Fall: Stoking Fear for Personal Gain

In a recent tweet, Musk shared an image implying that "hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times." This narrative suggests we are in an era of weakness leading to hard times, insinuating that our societal structures are on the brink of collapse.

We have to question: What does Musk gain from promoting this narrative?

The Ethical Imperative to Leave X

Considering these points, there is a strong ethical imperative for users to reconsider their engagement with X. Supporting a platform that fosters racism, bigotry, and misinformation contradicts the values of many individuals and organisations. By continuing to use X, we implicitly endorse its harmful practices and inconsistent policies

Our Collective Responsibility

The real tragedy is that it shouldn't take advertisers leaving the platform for us to recognise the harmful environment X fosters. We, as users, should lead by example and take a stand against the toxicity propagated on the platform. Continuing to use this platform means endorsing the harmful rhetoric and divisive behaviour it perpetuates and it continues to hand this man power he has repeatedly shown not to be capable of wielding.

A Standard We Can’t Accept

It's well past time to critically evaluate our continued use of X. In truth, we should have seen the writing on the wall long ago. Elon Musk's actions and statements, coupled with the platform's mishandling of sensitive content and misinformation, highlight the urgent need for change. Humanity deserves a digital environment that reflects our highest standards, not our lowest impulses.

The parallels between X and other problematic platforms are becoming increasingly clear. Most of us would never dream of signing up to Trump's Truth Social, and yet every day X looks more like it. With Musk and Trump announcing they'll be interviewing each other on X Spaces in the coming days, that convergence is about to become even more literal.

By choosing to disengage from platforms that don't align with our values, we send a powerful message. We declare that we will not accept a digital world built on fear, division, and misinformation. Instead, we choose to cultivate spaces that foster understanding, respect diversity, and contribute positively to our global discourse.

The standard we tweet around is not just the standard we accept — it's the standard we amplify. I can’t do that anymore, can you?