Why I decided to return to X

Everyone seems to be leaving X, the ex-Twitter. Personally, after years of absence, here's why I've decided to come back here.

During the Christmas vacations, I followed on X the heated debate in the USA over H1B visas. The intensity of the exchanges reminded me of what happens in Switzerland during popular votes: a sometimes harsh, but necessary, clash of ideas. But above all, it made me realize the extent to which social networks have lost the ability to host real adversarial debates.

In the traditional media, debates are dominated by academics, political leaders or experts. Although competent and well-intentioned, these speakers, from both left and right, often have more in common with each other than with the average person.

This homogeneity locks the media into a bubble, unable to anticipate phenomena like the populist wave that led to the election of Donald Trump. They perpetuate an outdated model, at a time when new technologies enable truly inclusive debates.

Of course, this inclusivity exposes us to offensive ideas. But the fact is, these ideas exist in society. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away. On the contrary, confronting them is necessary if we are to respond to them. This is the price we have to pay to maintain a truly open information network, which also allows new ideas to find space for expression.

Responsibility to users

What I like about X is that the platform gives responsibility back to the users. It doesn't decide a priori what I should or shouldn't read. The accounts I follow, those I block, and my interactions shape my news feed.

Visit community notes offer a decentralized approach to fact-checking («fact-checking»), making the platform more resistant to ideological bias. As for bots (false profiles), the emergence of digital identity and certification systems will gradually reduce them. And if you have to pay 7 francs a month to access public debate in real time, so be it! Ironically, those who take exception to this are often the same ones who criticize people who refuse to pay subscriptions to traditional media.

In reaction to the departure of an influential local figure from X, I read this tweet from a university professor: «For me, the bubble still works well on X. Not too much disturbing content in my feed. Not too much disturbing content in my feed». This comment illustrates, in my opinion, a fundamental misunderstanding of public debate. Public debate doesn't have to be pleasant. On the contrary, it's disturbing, frustrating, even trying - which is why we need to moderate our use of social networks.

And that's precisely what makes it necessary. It's not a source of pleasure, but it's the best alternative we have to violence. Happy New Year 2025, and long live freedom of expression!

Write to the author: yann.costa@leregardlibre.com

You've just read an unpublished free-access commentary. Debates, analyses, cultural news: subscribe to support us and get access to all our content!