(An analysis and personal testimony)
Since its founding in 2006 as a tool to accelerate the flow of news and information, Twitter distinguished itself as a space that brought together journalists, political activists, and decision-makers. It was, as The New York Times once described it, “the world’s largest open newsroom.”
It became a global public sphere where journalists, activists, and policymakers converged with the public in real time far from the slowness of traditional media platforms.
Yet what began as a quasi-public space governed by relative professional norms ended, following Elon Musk’s acquisition, as a new model of algorithmic control fused with capital and ideology reviving a fundamental question: Who owns the digital “public square” today?
As a study by Harvard University observed, “the acquisition of Twitter was not merely a business deal, but a re-engineering of power structures within one of the world’s most influential political platforms.”
For me as an international correspondent and investigative journalist — Twitter represented an early window into global media and political trends. I wasn’t an active user in its early days; rather, I followed developments under a pseudonym to preserve neutrality and professional safety. Yet the platform’s evolution was not merely a subject for distant analysis, but a deeply personal trajectory from professional detachment to activist engagement, and finally, to a conscious decision to boycott it entirely.
The first turning point came in the late 2000s, amid Sudan’s escalating political crisis a nation tied to me both culturally and familially. At that time, growing public pressure and readers’ calls for taking a clear stance pushed me to break professional silence and voice opinions on the corruption and authoritarianism long left unspoken.
What began as limited opinion pieces on small Sudanese websites evolved into the seed of a new wave of journalists who chose to abandon the comfort of neutrality and use digital tools to expose what was hidden. As a Sudanese proverb says: “He who’s already soaked has no choice but to swim.”
Thus, I found myself immersed in public activism on Twitter around 2011, when the platform became the central arena for Sudanese political debate and an alternative voice to state media. With few oppositions figures active online at the time, the space was wide open to build digital public opinion in support of democracy and justice.
As Al Jazeera Centre for Studies later observed (2015), our tweets played a part in the digital mobilization that paved the way for the 2019 revolution against dictatorship.
Twitter as a Revolutionary Tool: From Tweet to Stre
In just a few years, the presence of a small core of influential dissidents on Twitter crystallized into a broad digital opposition movement in Sudan, drawing thousands from limited local networks into a far wider and more resonant space.
Analytical research indicates that social media — foremost among them Twitter — played a pivotal role in linking Sudan’s domestic sphere with its diaspora, helping articulate a new revolutionary discourse that laid the groundwork for popular uprising. As in other “Arab Spring” nations, Sudanese users turned to the platform to coordinate protests, share eyewitness accounts, and break state control over the narrative.
The price, however, was steep: direct threats, defamation campaigns, character assassination, and systematic targeting by organized accounts reflecting the presence of pro-regime “electronic farms.”
Yet what gave Twitter its essential moral value was its early commitment to freedom of expression and diversity of voices.
Those principles began to erode with its 2022 sale to billionaire Elon Musk — a shift that the Harvard Shorenstein Center (2023) described as “a structural transformation of power within the platform — from professional editorial oversight to individualized ideological control.”
In 2022, Elon Musk announced the acquisition of Twitter for $44 billion, casting himself as a “defender of free speech” against what he described as the platform’s prior bias.
But the effects of this shift soon became visible: the organic reach of liberal content declined sharply, while far-right discourse expanded dramatically. Studies by the University of Southern California (2024) on “computational bias in platform algorithms” documented this
polarisation..
The real transformation, however, was not in slogans but in structure: the platform evolved from a company accountable to shareholders and regulations into a “privately owned public square” where a single owner determines content policies, algorithmic ranking, and who is granted or denied visibility.
Subsequent analytical studies recorded that Musk’s takeover coincided with:
- Fundamental changes in verification policies, turning the blue check into a paid service.
- Massive reductions in content moderation teams and the termination of partnerships with research groups combating misinformation.
- The reinstatement of extremist accounts previously banned, alongside a noticeable surge in far-right and hate-driven rhetoric
Algorithms as Political Weapons: From Hidden Bias to Overt Amplification
A study by a major university-affiliated research platform found that, after Musk’se takeover, active accounts within far-right networks experienced up to a 70% increase in retweets and a 14% rise in likes — far greater than other users. The report attributed this difference both to increased engagement among sympathetic users and to possible, though undisclosed, changes in algorithmic weighting.
In practice, I experienced this firsthand through:
- A sudden drop in follower numbers despite continued activity.
- Automated replies from the platform’s management citing “bot removal,” despite implausible figures and a lack of serious engagement with contrary evidence.
The real danger, however, lies not in deleting a tweet or suspending an account, but in quietly redirecting the flow of information so subtly that users seldom realize their political awareness is being reshaped daily.
In this sense, the algorithm ceased to be a mere technical tool; it became a political actor engaging in “public opinion engineering,” deciding who is heard and who is buried in the depths of the feed.
Free Speech: Between Principle and Selective Application
Musk raised the banner of “free speech” to justify loosening content restrictions and reinstating controversial figures previously banned. Yet scrutiny of the aftermath reveals how selective that “freedom” became. Hate speech, racism, and misinformation flourished, while critical journalistic and liberal voices especially those questioning the new owner or far-right ideologies were quietly sidelined.
Research analyses caution that when “freedom of speech” is invoked without clear and transparent standards, it ceases to be a democratic value and becomes an ideological shield protecting those with the power and the tools from accountability.
The Platform’s New Economy: Paying for Visibility
One of the most profound transformations was the shift from a logic of “almost equal access” to a “pay-to-reach” model. The verification badge — formerly a tool to confirm identity — became a paid subscription that grants visibility privileges.
This change severely harmed independent media outlets and individual journalists, forcing them to :
choose between:
- Paying to stay visible under the new rules, or
- Accepting gradual marginalization in a space where they had once been active participants.
“X” has thus become an instrument for narrowing public discourse rather than expanding it.
What makes this experience profoundly disheartening is that the platform once symbolizing digital revolution and popular democratization has turned into an echo chamber for extremism and capital. Twitter is no longer the platform of the free word — it has become a genuine security threat to societies and their right to truth.
Today, more than ever, journalists and citizens alike must redefine their relationship with digital platforms, demanding fair legislation that balances freedom of expression with social responsibility in the online sphere.
Silence in the face of algorithmic control is tantamount to surrendering to an invisible censorship no less dangerous than the authoritarianism of old regimes.