Twenty years after Twitter first appeared online with the promise of short, fast-moving conversations, the platform now known as X stands as one of the world’s most influential and contested digital spaces. Its evolution from the social network identified by a blue bird to a platform marked by a white X on a black background has transformed not only its identity but also the way millions of people consume information, engage in political debate, and participate in public conversations.
This feature is based on reporting by El País, which examines how the platform has reached its twentieth anniversary with a larger audience than it had during the Twitter era despite mounting evidence from multiple studies linking it to the spread of misinformation and increasingly polarized online discourse.
The most significant turning point came in 2022, when Elon Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion. The takeover initiated sweeping changes across the company. Content moderation policies were relaxed, previously suspended accounts were restored, and thousands of employees, including much of the moderation workforce, were dismissed. In place of traditional moderation, the company expanded the use of Community Notes, a system that allows users to provide additional context or challenge misleading claims posted on the platform.
According to the account presented by El País, that system has not proven capable of ensuring the consistent circulation of accurate information. The publication describes X as a platform where a broad range of content now circulates with fewer restrictions than before, reflecting a fundamental shift in how the network operates. Musk’s ownership also introduced a subscription service while reshaping the platform’s broader business and operational strategy.
Despite those extensive changes, X has continued to expand its audience. The company says the platform now reaches approximately 585 million unique monthly users, a notable increase from the roughly 370 million users Twitter reported before Musk’s acquisition, when it had at times approached the 400 million mark. By those figures, the platform has grown substantially even as its public image has become more divisive.
The question of why users continue to remain active on X despite its transformation has become central to understanding its endurance. Social media journalist and disinformation specialist Carmela Ríos argues that one of the strongest explanations lies in the network effect created over two decades. Platforms become valuable because communities gather there, and political institutions have largely chosen to remain on X despite concerns about its evolution.
According to Ríos, governments and political parties continue using X to announce policies, communicate with citizens, and express political positions. As much of political communication remains concentrated on the platform, broader political discussion continues to revolve around it, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. She argues that this environment has also elevated politicians and public figures who are particularly effective at generating confrontational or provocative content that aligns with the platform’s algorithmic incentives.
The transformation of X has also prompted broader questions about whether earlier versions of Twitter are remembered more positively than they actually existed. Ekaitz Cancela, an economist and researcher with the Tecnopolítica group at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, suggests that nostalgia may shape public perceptions of the platform’s past. He argues that many users associated social media with democratic movements such as Spain’s 2011 protests or the Arab Spring while overlooking problems that were already present, including online harassment, the acceleration of public conversation, and business models built around collecting user data.
For Ríos, another explanation for X’s continued popularity is the nature of the content itself. She describes today’s platform as highly ideological and structured in a way that gives greater visibility to highly polarizing voices. In her view, X is no longer particularly effective for measured conversations, orderly information gathering, or tracking emergencies in real time, yet it retains what she calls a journalistic DNA because competing social platforms have not successfully replaced its role as a destination for breaking information.
That competitive advantage has proven remarkably resilient. Meta attempted to challenge X with Threads, its own text-based social network, but has yet to establish the same influence in public conversation. Bluesky, which attracted many users leaving X, has also remained significantly smaller. According to the figures cited by El País, Bluesky has not surpassed 40 million users, leaving it far behind Musk’s platform.
Cancela argues that digital platforms succeed not simply by offering an appealing alternative but by maximizing user attention. He says that a less polarized platform is not necessarily enough to compete in an online economy where engagement is often driven by emotionally charged interactions. In his assessment, even alternative services reproduce many of the same economic incentives that shape existing social networks, including the need to retain users and eventually monetize their attention.
The platform’s role in the spread of misinformation remains one of the central concerns surrounding its current identity. El País points to multiple studies that characterize X as an important vehicle for misinformation while also noting that the platform has become attractive to some authoritarian political leaders. Yet experts also identify circumstances in which its comparatively open access provides practical advantages.
Lorena Jaume-Palasí, a specialist in technology ethics and philosophy of law and founder of organizations including Algorithm Watch and The Ethical Society, notes that X remains less restricted than encrypted messaging services such as Signal in many parts of the world. Because it attracts a broad and diverse user base, academics and individuals living under repressive conditions continue using it to communicate and access information. She points to people affected by the conflict in Gaza as one example of communities that may rely on X because it offers access to information outside state-controlled media environments.
Research cited by El País from IAB, the global association representing communication, advertising, and digital marketing industries, suggests that users remain on X for several reasons. Some continue to rely on it as a primary source of news. Others believe abandoning the platform would leave an influential public space increasingly dominated by more extreme voices. Another group remains engaged because of the political disputes, controversies, and public confrontations that have become a defining feature of the service.
Two decades after Jack Dorsey published the first message on what was then “twttr,” the platform occupies a markedly different place in the digital landscape. Ownership, moderation practices, algorithms, and public perception have all undergone significant change. Yet the network continues to command hundreds of millions of users and remains deeply embedded in political communication, journalism, and public debate, underscoring its enduring presence at the center of the global social media ecosystem.
