@Journalistadvic@CityNewsTO If Israel wanted to commit genocide in Gaza, the war would have ended on October 8th with zero casualties on Israel side.
The fact that the war is ongoing is because Israel does the absolute most than any country in history to reduce casualties of civilians while at war.
The walk hasnโt even started and there is already an arrest against a Pro-Palestine woman who looks stunned that her usual behavior isnโt being tolerated.
Toronto Police look like theyโre not messing around today.
This was 7 October 2023.
Palestinian terrorists murdered their mother and took photos of her crying babies near the mother's dead body.
Never forget why Israel is at war ๐
๐งต IS X GOING BACKWARDS?
@elonmusk
For most of its existence, X (formerly Twitter) was built on a very simple social contract.
If I chose to follow you, I would see what you posted.
Not every post. Not instantly. Not without interruption. But generally speaking, the platform respected the relationship between creators and their followers.
That was the entire point.
People came to X to exchange ideas, follow breaking news, participate in public conversations, and build communities around shared interests. It was not Instagram. It was not TikTok. It was not YouTube.
It was something different.
The platform's value came from information.
A journalist could break a story. A politician could make an announcement. A soldier could post an update from the battlefield. A citizen could share something happening in real time.
The best content was not necessarily the most creative. It was the most relevant.
Then monetization entered the picture.
In theory, monetization was supposed to reward active users and encourage people to contribute more content. There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea.
The problem is that incentives change behavior.
Some users began stealing content. Others turned their accounts into engagement farms. Some posted intentionally misleading material designed solely to provoke reactions. Rage became a business model.
But instead of addressing those bad actors directly, X appears to have changed the platform itself.
The result is that X is no longer optimizing for information.
It is optimizing for engagement.
And those are not the same thing.
A breaking news report about an important event may receive little engagement because there is nothing to argue about. The information is simply useful.
Meanwhile, a provocative post about race, religion, politics, or culture can generate thousands of comments, arguments, quote posts, and reactions.
The algorithm interprets that engagement as value.
As a result, the platform increasingly rewards controversy over information.
This creates a perverse outcome.
The very content that brought people to X in the first place is often suppressed, while the content that generates outrage receives massive amplification.
A straightforward news report may receive 10,000 views.
A post designed to start a fight may receive 2 million.
The message is clear:
The platform values reactions more than information.
That may produce short-term engagement metrics, but it undermines the reason many people joined X in the first place.
The problem becomes even worse when combined with the current monetization system.
Today, creators are seeing a fraction of the revenue they once received.
At the same time, many report significant reductions in reach.
The incentives that once encouraged news gathering, reporting, and consistent posting are disappearing.
People are posting less because the rewards have diminished.
Users are seeing less because the algorithm has become more selective.
And followers increasingly discover that clicking "Follow" does not actually mean they will see the accounts they chose to follow.
That is perhaps the biggest issue of all.
The platform has quietly broken the relationship between creators and their audiences.
I have more than a million followers.
When a post reaches only a tiny percentage of those followers, it raises an obvious question:
What exactly does the Follow button mean anymore?
If someone explicitly chooses to follow an account, why should an algorithm be allowed to override that decision?
The follower made a choice.
The platform should respect it.
Instead, X increasingly behaves as though it knows better than its users.
The irony is that X seems to be chasing a future that already belongs to someone else.
If people want algorithmically amplified original content, they already have TikTok.
If they want highly visual influencer content, they already have Instagram.
If they want long-form video, they already have YouTube.