Algorithms. They’re something we hear about any time a new social media app sets the market ablaze. By now, most know how these algorithms are supposed to work. Whenever you interact with a post, companies use that data to curate your feed to show information you’re likely to continue interacting with. That’s why my Instagram feed, for instance, is typically filled with cats or pickle-inspired dishes.
The success of these algorithms is not a show of luck by any stretch. These programs have been designed by engineers to produce the highest possible amount of engagement from each user. This includes what news users see and what advertisements would come across any given person’s feed.
Take Meta’s algorithm, for example. While no one person is in charge of how content is distributed, they use a tool designed by engineers called FBLearner, which uses unmonitored AI to track what people interact with and what they see. Although the basic principle of an algorithm does not immediately present a problem, we’ve seen examples of how companies can take advantage of them.
Meta’s Facebook was the subject of a groundbreaking report that found that their site allowed the spread of misinformation regarding the 2020 presidential election, including COVID-19 and QAnon. The report led to a debate over how much social media should be regulated by the government, specifically how much we consider these to be “private” companies despite essentially having turned into information sharing systems.
But what happens when a partisan government official owns one of the largest social media websites in the world? Elon Musk’s owning of X has created a de facto gray area of how we consider its algorithm. During the election cycle, X pumped countless advertisements of President Donald Trump’s campaign, largely paid for by Musk himself, who was reported to have spent over $288 million on the election.
Musk now heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), working closely with Trump, while simultaneously running X. When scrolling through Musk’s own feed, many of his posts are displaying the same rhetoric of the Trump administration, including anti-transgender propaganda and deportation statistics.
While scrolling on your own feed, however, it’s impossible to ignore the types of advertisements users’ individual algorithms are displaying. Some ads do seem catered to your individual preferences, but others seem to be reflecting the same statements coming from Musk’s account. Advertisements that are antisemitic and ones promoting the idea of “white power.” A study published in 2024 found that “the version of Twitter’s recommender system under analysis may have inadvertently amplified tweets that express partisan viewpoints, regardless of their truthfulness.”
This conclusion is far from surprising considering that Musk himself was found to be one of the largest spreaders of misinformation on the internet. Many of the untruths posted by Musk have to do with transgender rights, migrants voting and the election process as a whole.
So again the question is posed — how should we view Musk, a government official, owning and operating an information sharing social media platform with over 100 million United States users? If this trend of misinformation continues, it’s only fair to worry about the consequences of future elections and how Musk, along with other Trump donor Mark Zuckerberg, could affect the results.
It would be an oxymoron to say that Musk’s ownership of X should be regulated by the government, so perhaps it’s better to define his control of the platform as an unethical circumstance that will continue to unravel the fabric of our already-fragile political system. And if you don’t know how to feel about this, try asking Grok, X’s own AI bot, “Who is the largest spreader of misinformation on X?” and “Should Musk be allowed to own X while also being a U.S. government official?”
wjackso2@ramapo.edu
Featured photo courtesy of Fox News
