From ubiquitous bird app to banned in Brazil: what happened to X (and will it happen to others)?

Early in August, Elon Musk was vaguely threatened with extradition to the UK for his role in spreading misinformation that resulted in riots. Three weeks later, X was banned in Brazil, following unpaid fines and allegations that the app was being used to spread politically threatening misinformation. 

Brazil has had run-ins with social platforms before, including WhatsApp and Telegram, after the companies failed to ban certain profiles and share user data. Musk has claimed that X is the “#1 source of truth in Brazil”. His statement plays into the argument that X is serving an integral role in free speech, even as Brazilians shared their experiences struggling to access the app –– on other apps, of course. 

Musk’s application of this argument has been inconsistent, reinstating Donald Trump’s Twitter account in 2022, but complying in 2023 with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s order to take down accounts related to a farmers protest. However, in theory, the point echoes those of other social platform CEOs who have sat trial over the years: platforms are not responsible for the actions of their users, but do have a responsibility to preserve free speech, and should therefore enforce as minimal moderation as possible. TikTok has been pushing back against a proposed ban in the US using similar arguments, saying it would “trample the free speech rights of 170 million Americans”. Instagram, meanwhile, showed no such qualms, quietly updating default content settings on its app to avoid ‘political’ content at around the same time. 

Social apps are in an interesting dance with democratic governments. They have arguably enabled misinformation to spread on an unprecedented scale, allowed underrepresented narratives to find followings, and been vital to political marketing (as per the wildfire effect of Kamala Harris / Brat memes). Companies operating in direct opposition to local governments should act with a degree of caution to avoid serious consequences – such as removal from the market entirely, embargo’s, or targeted legislative action. Around a quarter of Brazilians use X weekly; with a population of over 215 million, that is quite a lot of users to lose.

Free speech is also an interesting argument for these platforms to take. Social platforms are not speech itself, but places for that speech to happen. It is also hard to argue that speech there is free when algorithms are notoriously censor-happy. Restrictions on social apps are so strong that young people are creating a new vernacular called “algospeak” to avoid them. Musk himself has been criticised for broadcasting his posts to users who do not follow him. The very existence of paid advertising placements and subscriptions that verify accounts and give them greater priority on the timeline is the social version of music’s payola: pay to play (or, in this case, post). This makes it hard to imagine that the “free speech” line of defence can hold up long-term. 

This year’s rapid succession of court cases, bans, and arrests are setting the stage for the future of social platforms, especially as they turn increasingly towards entertainment as a USP rather than merely social networking and connection (which brings with it a different conversation around curation). At the same time, users themselves are pushing back against the time demands of apps by trying to reduce their screen time. Legislation is one major factor in play, but others – from user demands to social platforms’ role in political campaigns – will doubtlessly have impacts, as those legislators consider the long-term effects. 

X’s weekly userbase is roughly half that of Instagram, and among younger users, less than half that of TikTok. Musk may proclaim that the people of countries like Brazil need X to exercise their free speech rights, but on a free market with many other platforms at their disposal, they do have other options. As social platforms move forward in this environment, perhaps the question they should ask is not what users (including politicians) can do for them, but what it is they really do for their users.