How Twitter broke Elon's mind

Musk's tweets are now wildly overrepresented to basically all Twitter users, so that using Twitter often feels as if the worst guy at the party had trapped everyone else in a one-sided, unending conversation. Six months after that, X allowed political ads back on the site after banning them in 2019. This meant that users were increasingly being exposed to ideas that had money behind them.
In February 2023, the billionaire Elon Musk noticed that his tweet about the Superbowl had done much worse than President Biden's on the same topic. He called a 2.30 a.m. emergency meeting of X engineers (and indeed any employees who could code) to change the algorithm and expand his reach. The engineers designed a new algorithm that inflated Musk's tweets' reach by a factor of 1,000.
By the time the next American presidential election came around, Musk had also become increasingly obsessed with X personally, and not just professionally. One journalist noted that, during some weeks, 'there was [only] one 90-minute period – between 3.00 and 4.29 a.m. local time – when he never posted. Every other half-hour period, night or day, he [had] sent at least one tweet [during the course of that week].'
Because Musk is chronically online, speaks English and sleeps odd hours, he has ended up taking in a great deal of British content (since Britain is five to eight hours ahead), which made him strangely and deeply invested in British culture wars even as the US election loomed: 'His shortest overnight break [was] … him logging off after retweeting a meme comparing London's Metropolitan police force to the Nazi SS, before bounding back online four and a half hours later to retweet a crypto influencer complaining about jail terms for Britons attending protests.'
The algorithm of his own platform shaped his brain. X's own AI, Grok, flagged Musk as perhaps the biggest spreader of misinformation on the site. As went Musk, so went the platform. Studies from the University of Wisconsin and Cambridge University show that on X, right-wing ideas reach more people and other, (somewhat) left-wing accounts, including Biden's White House, reach fewer.
On election night, Trump and Musk celebrated together. And Musk, who has $3bn in contracts with the US federal government, ended up as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, which has been continuously shrinking (and outsourcing, and arguably destroying) the federal government, week after week this year.
Many of the people who were upset or outraged by the changes to Twitter (who often are the same people outraged by the current changes to the US government) tried, and sometimes struggled, to explain why. It was, strangely, as if they didn't quite have the language for it.
For example, Luke Zaleski, the legal affairs editor at Condé Nast, wrote a popular rejoinder tweet: 'Just a reminder to everyone – Elon is a rightwing media mogul with massive conflicts of interests in various fields that require governmental oversight and regulation – who's openly and not so openly – utilizing his giant personal social-media platform to serve his own political purposes.'
Absolutely. But our capitalist society generally allows wealthy people to buy companies and do things for political gain. The thing that made people especially upset in this case, I'd suggest, is that the company Musk owns is a vehicle for the public to engage in activities that are central to civic life. As an unknown tweeter, Avi Bueno, put it (his account later disappeared), 'We should probably have a serious discussion about the ease with which a billionaire haphazardly purchased & immediately destroyed a company that… facilitated essential communication for hundreds of millions.'
The missing word here is 'infrastructure': 'we' let Musk buy a crucial piece of digital infrastructure. Musk purchasing the platform was painful to many people not only because it changed their digital habits but also because they sensed, without necessarily being able to express it, that he had captured a piece of potential democratic infrastructure and turned it into something far worse.
Although most probably didn't think about Twitter as 'infrastructure', many already grasped that there was something about its function that was potentially more socially and politically important than, say, Netflix. The frequent fury over being charged for premium use emerges from people's intuitive sense that something like Twitter should be an important, free service (not owned by a belligerent, radicalised billionaire).
Many commentators had long believed that Twitter might play a central role in certain kinds of political and social change. Andrew Sullivan, for the Atlantic, published a piece titled 'The Revolution Will be Twittered'. Mark Pfeifle, a former deputy national security advisor in the George W. Bush administration wanted to award Twitter a Nobel Prize.
I suspect Twitter will not be winning that prize now. But once upon a time many saw it as the platform that would lead to all their favoured democratic uprisings and/or enact the ideal of democracy itself. In practice, as Bevins notes, Twitter was a weak point for movements in many ways, not only because it meant that protests were only loosely organised, or because activists often thought they were doing more than they were, but also because governments used social media platforms to find and arrest dissidents.
Indeed, infrastructure is always contested in this way: used by both the powerful and the masses in competing ways to gain power, used for and against democratic life. At one end of things, users might feel they are engaged in democratic life, but at the other end, the platforms and governments involved in digital communication are often pulling their own strings, sometimes with greater effect.
For example, TikTok has now been caught up in a cold war between the US and China. So while these platforms seem frivolous on the surface to many (all the weird dancing videos! All the incomprehensible disputes and subtweets!), they are the centre of conflicts between the most powerful states on earth because of their central, infrastructural role in public life.
And in truth, as upsetting as the takeover of Twitter was in some ways, the most remarkable thing about it was that it wasn't remotely an anomaly. Nothing about a billionaire owning an important piece of communications infrastructure (or using it to try to influence democratic elections) is unusual. And it doesn't just happen in the US – Musk has also turned his influence to other elections around the world, perhaps most notably in Germany.
Fifteen or so billionaires own a huge percentage of America's news channels, and six corporations alone control much of it. Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Michael Bloomberg owns, well, Bloomberg. Donald and Samuel Newhouse own the media company that in turn owns Wired, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Vogue. In 2016 the Cox Media Group division owned seven daily newspapers, 59 radio stations, more than a dozen non-daily publications and 14 broadcast television stations. And so on.
Twitter's takeover felt upsetting because it felt like a piece of infrastructure for democracy. And it felt extra upsetting because it already felt like it belonged to all of us: so many users helped make it the place it was. It was Twitter users' labour, interests and relationships that made the site work. It felt wrong for a collective conversation about the future of the world to be purchasable, weaponisable.
But from the perspective of capitalism, the only unusual thing about the Twitter acquisition was that people could see it happening and understand its impact on their life straight away. The world was treated to a real-time demonstration of what happens when our public discourse infrastructure is owned by someone with his own particularly obvious, slightly bizarre and constantly live-tweeted agenda.
The temptation is to focus on the dramatic figures, on Trump, on Musk. But it's not really about them, comic and frightening though they are in turns. It is the system that brought them there; it is about the economy where the three wealthiest Americans own more than the bottom 50% of the country. And there are many ways to try to change that system, but when it comes to helping people think differently and engage in the form of life we might meaningfully call democracy, I hope we now turn our attention to democratic infrastructure. We need to own it collectively; we need to build new collective forms of it. We need to take it out of the hands of billionaires and the far right. The quality of this infrastructure will determine the quality of the thinking we are able to undertake.
I have read a great many definitions of infrastructure. One I liked best was from the CEO of the Vancouver Airport Authority, who defined infrastructure as 'the stuff you build for the future you want'. Do we want a future where we are stuck now, tweaking the words we use but never really reaching one another? Or do we want a future where people have real options for how to live their lives and, as a result, sometimes change their minds?
This is an edited extract from Don't Talk About Politics: How to Change 21st-Century Minds by Sarah Stein Lubrano, published by Bloomsbury

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Leader Live

10 minutes ago

• Leader Live

US strikes three Iranian nuclear sites

Iran's state-run IRNA news agency, quoting a provincial official, confirmed attacks on Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites. The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2025 US and Israeli officials have said that American stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kg) bunker buster bomb they alone can carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily-fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Mr Trump added in a later post that he would address the national audience at 10pm eastern time, writing: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Trump said B-2 stealth bombers were used but did not specify which types of bombs were dropped. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. The strikes are a perilous decision for the US as Iran has pledged to retaliate if it joined the Israeli assault, and for Mr Trump personally, having won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. Trump told reporters on Friday that he was not interested in sending ground forces into Iran, saying it's 'the last thing you want to do.' He had previously indicated that he would make a final choice over the course of two weeks, a timeline that seemed drawn out as the situation was evolving quickly. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them'. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region'. Trump has vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. Israel 's military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' The prospect of a wider war threatened, too. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joins Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the US. The US ambassador to Israel announced the US had begun 'assisted departure flights,' the first from Israel since the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, that sparked the war in Gaza. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Thursday's press briefing that Trump had said: 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' Instead, the U.S. president struck just two days later. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. The Israelis say their offensive has already crippled Iran's air defences, allowing them to already significantly degrade multiple Iranian nuclear sites. But to destroy the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, Israel appealed to Trump for US bunker-busting bomb, which uses its weight and sheer kinetic force to reach deeply buried targets and then explode. The penetrator is currently only delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber, which is only found in the American arsenal. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, and is believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, raising the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Previous Israeli strikes at another Iranian nuclear site, Natanz, on a centrifuge site have caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area, the IAEA has said. Mr Trump's decision for direct US military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear programme. For months, Mr Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. The US in recent days has been shifting military aircraft and warships into and around the Middle East to protect Israel and US bases from Iranian attacks. All the while, Mr Trump has gone from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Mr Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Mr Trump said in a social media posting. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Mr Trump withdrew the US from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever'. The 2015 deal, signed by Iran, US and other world powers, created a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Mr Trump decried the Obama-era deal for giving Iran too much in return for too little, because the agreement did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behaviour. Mr Trump has bristled at criticism from some of his Maga faithful, including conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, who have suggested that further US involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end US involvement in expensive and endless wars.

Glasgow Times

10 minutes ago

• Glasgow Times

US strikes three Iranian nuclear sites

Iran's state-run IRNA news agency, quoting a provincial official, confirmed attacks on Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites. The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. US and Israeli officials have said that American stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kg) bunker buster bomb they alone can carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily-fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Mr Trump added in a later post that he would address the national audience at 10pm eastern time, writing: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Trump said B-2 stealth bombers were used but did not specify which types of bombs were dropped. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. The strikes are a perilous decision for the US as Iran has pledged to retaliate if it joined the Israeli assault, and for Mr Trump personally, having won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. Trump told reporters on Friday that he was not interested in sending ground forces into Iran, saying it's 'the last thing you want to do.' He had previously indicated that he would make a final choice over the course of two weeks, a timeline that seemed drawn out as the situation was evolving quickly. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them'. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region'. Trump has vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. Israel 's military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' The prospect of a wider war threatened, too. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joins Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the US. The US ambassador to Israel announced the US had begun 'assisted departure flights,' the first from Israel since the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, that sparked the war in Gaza. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Thursday's press briefing that Trump had said: 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' Instead, the U.S. president struck just two days later. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. The Israelis say their offensive has already crippled Iran's air defences, allowing them to already significantly degrade multiple Iranian nuclear sites. But to destroy the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, Israel appealed to Trump for US bunker-busting bomb, which uses its weight and sheer kinetic force to reach deeply buried targets and then explode. The penetrator is currently only delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber, which is only found in the American arsenal. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, and is believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, raising the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Previous Israeli strikes at another Iranian nuclear site, Natanz, on a centrifuge site have caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area, the IAEA has said. Mr Trump's decision for direct US military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear programme. For months, Mr Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. The US in recent days has been shifting military aircraft and warships into and around the Middle East to protect Israel and US bases from Iranian attacks. All the while, Mr Trump has gone from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Mr Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Mr Trump said in a social media posting. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Mr Trump withdrew the US from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever'. The 2015 deal, signed by Iran, US and other world powers, created a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Mr Trump decried the Obama-era deal for giving Iran too much in return for too little, because the agreement did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behaviour. Mr Trump has bristled at criticism from some of his Maga faithful, including conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, who have suggested that further US involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end US involvement in expensive and endless wars.

The Herald Scotland

20 minutes ago

• The Herald Scotland

US strikes three Iranian nuclear sites

The decision to directly involve the US in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran that have moved to systematically eradicate the country's air defences and offensive missile capabilities, while damaging its nuclear enrichment facilities. US and Israeli officials have said that American stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kg) bunker buster bomb they alone can carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily-fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear programme buried deep underground. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Mr Trump said in a post on social media. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Mr Trump added in a later post that he would address the national audience at 10pm eastern time, writing: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Trump said B-2 stealth bombers were used but did not specify which types of bombs were dropped. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. The strikes are a perilous decision for the US as Iran has pledged to retaliate if it joined the Israeli assault, and for Mr Trump personally, having won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. Trump told reporters on Friday that he was not interested in sending ground forces into Iran, saying it's 'the last thing you want to do.' He had previously indicated that he would make a final choice over the course of two weeks, a timeline that seemed drawn out as the situation was evolving quickly. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them'. Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region'. Trump has vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. Israel 's military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' The prospect of a wider war threatened, too. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joins Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the US. The US ambassador to Israel announced the US had begun 'assisted departure flights,' the first from Israel since the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, that sparked the war in Gaza. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at Thursday's press briefing that Trump had said: 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' Instead, the U.S. president struck just two days later. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. The Israelis say their offensive has already crippled Iran's air defences, allowing them to already significantly degrade multiple Iranian nuclear sites. But to destroy the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant, Israel appealed to Trump for US bunker-busting bomb, which uses its weight and sheer kinetic force to reach deeply buried targets and then explode. The penetrator is currently only delivered by the B-2 stealth bomber, which is only found in the American arsenal. The bomb carries a conventional warhead, and is believed to be able to penetrate about 200 feet (61 meters) below the surface before exploding, and the bombs can be dropped one after another, effectively drilling deeper and deeper with each successive blast. The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran is producing highly enriched uranium at Fordo, raising the possibility that nuclear material could be released into the area if the GBU-57 A/B were used to hit the facility. Previous Israeli strikes at another Iranian nuclear site, Natanz, on a centrifuge site have caused contamination only at the site itself, not the surrounding area, the IAEA has said. Mr Trump's decision for direct US military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear programme. For months, Mr Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. The US in recent days has been shifting military aircraft and warships into and around the Middle East to protect Israel and US bases from Iranian attacks. All the while, Mr Trump has gone from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Mr Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. 'We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding,' Mr Trump said in a social media posting. 'He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Mr Trump withdrew the US from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever'. The 2015 deal, signed by Iran, US and other world powers, created a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Mr Trump decried the Obama-era deal for giving Iran too much in return for too little, because the agreement did not cover Iran's non-nuclear malign behaviour. Mr Trump has bristled at criticism from some of his Maga faithful, including conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, who have suggested that further US involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end US involvement in expensive and endless wars.