X.com is a scam

[Jovialis]

I’m over it. I’m tired of feeling angry and disgusted all the time (by design). I deleted my account because it’s a terrible website and a complete waste of time. The opportunity cost is real, and it’s simply exhausting. I deleted it a couple of days ago, and I feel happier already. My passion is research into aDNA. That’s all I ever intended to do. Eupedia is optimal for that, even if the reach isn’t as great as X.

I looked into how the algorithm works. Essentially, about 50% of your feed comes from in-network sources (people you follow), and about 50% comes from out-of-network sources (content adjacent to your followers and interests). That out-of-network pool is the culprit. It rewards engagement, which is often driven by rage-bait, baiting people into participation through outrage. Ultimately, it leads to rumination, threat-scanning, and seeking out conflict. That’s intentional. It has less to do with freedom of speech and more to do with mass psychological manipulation for profit.

It’s also clear that social-division bots and paid trolls from third-world countries (Nigeria, Pakistan, Cambodia, etc.) are used to amplify this manipulation, likely on behalf of unscrupulous organizations or individuals. A mere $100 can go a long way when the U.S. dollar, pound, or euro is far more powerful than the local currency.

People like me are ideal candidates for the platform because I’m compelled to correct what I see as false. But even if you’re 100% right about a topic, the conflict doesn’t end. It continues because you’re not just arguing with individuals; you’re fighting an algorithm that constantly supplies new combatants. That creates mental dysregulation and, over time, a higher baseline irritability. Then it ripples into everyday life, as you carry the rumination into the real world.

If you’re on X and this resonates with you, do yourself a favor and delete your account. It isn’t a rash decision. You have up to 30 days to sign back in and recover it if you change your mind. But once you feel the freedom of stepping away from the negativity, and from being constantly exposed to people saying callous, idiotic things, you’ll realize it’s worth staying the course and letting it die.

 

[Maciamo]

I've just found this on X. Someone asked Grok if X is a right-wing propaganda machine and Grok confirmed it!

 

[Jovialis]

There was a time when I was muting many accounts, but it didn't seem to make much of a difference at all. It was all cookie-cutter accounts essentially parroting content of the same content.

The weird thing about RW X is that many of the biggest accounts that flirt with or are outright supporters of Nazism/Aryanism are managed by people who the actual historical Nazis would have likely killed. Yet these people command large followings, and are parroted by more "legitimate" people you would expect.

Though, I am reminded that these kind of contradictions did exist in reality as well. Ernst Rohm comes to mind, who was openly homosexual, yet was the head of the SA until his arrest and execution. Or Emil Maurice who was part Jewish, and a founding member of the SS. It took Adolf Hitler's intervention for Maurice to keep his position as an "Honorary Aryan". There was also Max Naumann, who was Jewish, and tried to promote a Jewish-Nazi organization, but was arrested in 1935.

These people today who follow in their foot steps would ultimately end the same.

Edit: This is interesting, it is called Instrumental Tolerance, and it is a known historical tactic; from chatgpt:

What you are describing is not an anomaly; it is a recurring structural feature of extremist movements, both historically and in contemporary online ecosystems.

At a high level, there are three overlapping dynamics at work.

---

1. Instrumental Tolerance vs. Ideological Purity​

Extremist movements routinely suspend their own ideological rules when doing so advances power, reach, or legitimacy. This is not hypocrisy in their internal logic; it is opportunism.

Historical National Socialism is a clear example. Figures such as Ernst Röhm, Emil Maurice, and Max Naumann were tolerated temporarily because they were useful:

• Röhm provided mass street power through the SA.
• Maurice was personally close to Adolf Hitler.
• Naumann attempted to neutralize Jewish opposition by assimilation rather than resistance.

None of these arrangements reflected genuine ideological flexibility. They were contingent exceptions, revoked once the movement consolidated authority or perceived a threat. History shows how that ended.

The same logic applies today: individuals who would be excluded—or worse—under a fully realized ideological regime are often tolerated online because they generate attention, signal transgression, or expand audience reach.

---

2. Online Radicalism Is Attention-Optimized, Not Coherent​

What you are observing on RW X is less a movement than an attention market. Algorithms reward:

• Repetition
• Outrage
• Simplified narratives
• Identity signaling over internal consistency

As a result, ideological contradictions are not just tolerated; they are structurally invisible. Followers are not evaluating coherence or historical accuracy. They are reacting to:

• Affective cues (anger, grievance, humiliation)
• Group identity reinforcement
• Perceived transgression against mainstream norms

This is why muting individual accounts felt ineffective. You were not encountering distinct thinkers; you were encountering a memetic swarm, where interchangeable accounts echo the same simplified frames. Removing nodes does not collapse the network.

---

3. Peripheral Actors Are Always the Most Replaceable​

Your final observation—that contemporary analogues would ultimately meet the same fate as their historical predecessors—is accurate in a structural sense, not a predictive one.

Extremist movements have a consistent hierarchy of expendability:

1. Peripheral allies
2. Useful exceptions
3. Internal rivals
4. Only then, external enemies

Those on the margins—whether by background, identity, or ideological impurity—are always the first to be discarded once their utility declines. This is not a moral failure of individuals; it is a design feature of absolutist ideologies.

---

Why This Feels Especially Jarring Now​

The modern twist is that power is simulated rather than exercised. Online radicalism allows people to inhabit roles that would never survive real-world enforcement of the ideology they promote. The contradiction is therefore more visible—and more grotesque—because it is never resolved by reality.

History resolved it brutally. Social media indefinitely postpones that reckoning.

---

If you are interested, we can also analyze:

• Why disengagement (muting/blocking) often fails psychologically even when it succeeds algorithmically
• How radical movements hollow out intellectually once they become purely performative
• Or how historical awareness tends to immunize people from long-term radical capture, even if it does not reduce short-term exposure

Just indicate which direction would be most useful.

 

[Jovialis]

I'm a couple weeks without any social media at all save for this website. But eupedia is different, it is intellectually stimulating, passive non-hyper engagement-focused, and the people here are respectful. Being free of social media is truly liberating, even if less nefarious than X, it seems like social media itself is a toxic psychological element in life. You have to hold on to your discipline in fighting the urge to check on it, to engage in it in any way. It is just like any other drug, it spikes your dopamine, but ultimately it is deleterious. I also stopped listing to political pundits, which is another kind of mental toxin. I only watch the local news now, which is still kind of bias, but at least not as exaggerated and partisan. I just want to be free of these high-stress, conflict-inducing, hatred-inspiring elements of society, and live my life.

 

[Jovialis]

Nearly half of Europeans would back banning X over EU law breaches

A new YouGov survey across Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Poland shows nearly half of Europeans (47 percent) would back banning social media platform X from the EU if it continues to breach EU rules.

www.euronews.com

Good to see many others are getting fed up with it too.

Thus far, the changes I’ve made to my life have been profoundly transformational. It almost feels like I’ve returned to the early 2000s; no social media, no constant exposure to divisive punditry. When you step back from it, you realize how superfluous and invisible these people and platforms truly are in everyday life. Simply focusing on what I need to do to move my life forward, without being mentally encumbered by those distractions, is deeply liberating. My life, on its own terms, is already rewarding, stimulating, and fulfilling.

 

[Jovialis]

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2026/02/12/dont-ban-teenagers-from-social-media

Seriously would like to know how social media could possibly benefit teenagers, but since it is behind a pay wall, I cannot read it. What foolishness, might as well say tobacco should be allowed to children. Any sensible person with healthy instincts knows it is an absolute net negative, and should without question be banned for children under 16 at the very least. Of course I'm sure the tortured perverted logic must be in the quest for profit. I will never allow my children to engage with social media, and teach them that only stupid and useless people waste their time on it. Much like the way I tell them to avoid doing drugs. I support an outright ban for all under 21. I would force facial recognition to apply for an account. Currently in states like Texas, one must use facial recognition to access pornographic websites. I would like to see that implemented for social media.

 

[Maciamo]

I agree that social media like X and Facebook should be restricted for teenagers. But I don't agree about the currently proposed age verification method with an ID card or estimation of age based on facial recognition. Providing your real name or address is a big no-no for most people. Facial recognition is not accurate enough to determine a person's age.

It would be better for parents themselves to impose the restrictions. This can easily be done with parental control apps, blocking specific websites.

If governments insist on age verification, a less intrusive method would be to provide a credit card number for a test payment that is later reverted. In most countries people have to be at least 18 years old to own a credit card. Some countries have proposed a ban on social media for children under 13, 14, 15, or 16 years old. Personally, I think that 18 years old is the most appropriate and also the easiest to implement the age verification.

 

[Jovialis]

I agree that social media like X and Facebook should be restricted for teenagers. But I don't agree about the currently proposed age verification method with an ID card or estimation of age based on facial recognition. Providing your real name or address is a big no-no for most people. Facial recognition is not accurate enough to determine a person's age.

It would be better for parents themselves to impose the restrictions. This can easily be done with parental control apps, blocking specific websites.

If governments insist on age verification, a less intrusive method would be to provide a credit card number for a test payment that is later reverted. In most countries people have to be at least 18 years old to own a credit card. Some countries have proposed a ban on social media for children under 13, 14, 15, or 16 years old. Personally, I think that 18 years old is the most appropriate and also the easiest to implement the age verification.

For me the desired outcome of such proposals as facial recognition, in addition to other measures such as ID, would be a way to indirectly suppress social media usage all together; i.e friction/price intervention. Much like the way heavy taxation on tobacco is intended to suppress cigarette usage. This would help alleviate the entire ecosystem of bots and outrage-laden trolls, leaving mostly just people who utilize it for professional usage, or people willing to post opinions that are civil and coherent. There will always be people for which this doesn't matter, but that will ultimately be their choice.

I want the public to purse freedom of association, over freedom of speech, which has proven to be driven by corporate greed by maximizing outrage, of which is constantly imposed upon the public via algorithms. When these practices are shrouded as “free speech,” the outcome resembles the permissive environment that allows scam phone-call centers to operate at scale.

 

[Maciamo]

Another aspect of the scam behind X is the fake engagement generated for subscriptions. I asked the AI whether it was true that the increased views and likes that people get by getting the subscription on x.com are mostly from bots or (human) click farms in Africa and Asia?

Answer :

It is largely true that a significant portion of the increased engagement (views, likes, reposts) seen by X Premium subscribers comes from inauthentic sources, including bots and human "click farms" based in parts of Asia and Africa.

The primary driver for this is X’s Creator Revenue Sharing program, which pays creators based on engagement from other verified users. This has created a black market where click farms purchase Premium subscriptions for thousands of bot accounts to generate "verified" engagement that can be monetized.

Why Premium Subscribers Attract This Traffic​

If you recently subscribed and noticed a spike in generic or irrelevant likes, it is likely due to three main factors:

• Algorithmic Visibility: X Premium subscribers receive a massive boost in visibility (up to 10x reach in some reports). This pushes your content into the "For You" feeds of millions of users, including bot networks that scour the platform for content to engage with.
• "Warming Up" Bot Accounts: To avoid detection, bot farms must simulate real human behavior. They program their bots to like and view random posts from "high-quality" (verified) accounts to build a history of "normal" activity before they are used for targeted spam or political manipulation.
• Engagement Farming (Verified for Verified): Because X only pays out for engagement from other Premium users, bot farms are now comprised of "verified bots" (blue-check accounts). These bots aggressively engage with other blue-check accounts hoping for reciprocal engagement, which increases their own potential payout.

Where This Traffic Comes From​

Investigations and court cases have confirmed that these operations are heavily concentrated in specific regions known for low labor costs or lax digital regulations:

• Asia: There is well-documented evidence of large-scale click farms in Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Pakistan.
  • Example: In May 2025, X explicitly sued a group of "John Doe" entities operating a click farm in Vietnam for generating fake engagement to siphon money from the Creator Revenue program.
• Africa: Nigeria has been identified alongside Pakistan as a major hub for operating accounts that pose as Western users to generate engagement or influence political discourse. Reports have also highlighted networks targeting African regions using fake accounts.

Bots vs. Human Click Farms​

The traffic is a mix of two distinct types of "fake" engagement:

1. Automated Bots: Scripts that automatically like and repost content containing specific keywords or from specific user tiers (like Premium subscribers).
2. Human Click Farms: Low-wage workers (often in the countries listed above) who are paid to manually scroll, like, and reply to posts. This is harder for X's automated systems to detect because the activity comes from a real human device.

Summary Table: Types of Inauthentic Engagement​

Type	Origin	Motivation	Connection to Premium
Revenue Bots	Vietnam, India, Nigeria	Earn ad revenue share from X	They are Premium subscribers themselves; they engage with you to look real or prompt you to engage back.
"Warm-up" Bots	Global (via proxies)	Evade bans	They like your boosted Premium posts to build a "human" activity history so they don't get suspended.
Click Farm Workers	Philippines, Bangladesh	Sell "likes" services	They manually like posts to fulfill orders for clients who bought engagement packages.

 

[Jovialis]

Mapped: Minimum Age Laws for Social Media Around the World

This map shows the countries and states implementing or considering social media bans for children.

www.visualcapitalist.com

 

[Jovialis]

Another aspect of the scam behind X is the fake engagement generated for subscriptions. I asked the AI whether it was true that the increased views and likes that people get by getting the subscription on x.com are mostly from bots or (human) click farms in Africa and Asia?

Answer :

It is largely true that a significant portion of the increased engagement (views, likes, reposts) seen by X Premium subscribers comes from inauthentic sources, including bots and human "click farms" based in parts of Asia and Africa.

The primary driver for this is X’s Creator Revenue Sharing program, which pays creators based on engagement from other verified users. This has created a black market where click farms purchase Premium subscriptions for thousands of bot accounts to generate "verified" engagement that can be monetized.

Why Premium Subscribers Attract This Traffic​

If you recently subscribed and noticed a spike in generic or irrelevant likes, it is likely due to three main factors:

• Algorithmic Visibility: X Premium subscribers receive a massive boost in visibility (up to 10x reach in some reports). This pushes your content into the "For You" feeds of millions of users, including bot networks that scour the platform for content to engage with.
• "Warming Up" Bot Accounts: To avoid detection, bot farms must simulate real human behavior. They program their bots to like and view random posts from "high-quality" (verified) accounts to build a history of "normal" activity before they are used for targeted spam or political manipulation.
• Engagement Farming (Verified for Verified): Because X only pays out for engagement from other Premium users, bot farms are now comprised of "verified bots" (blue-check accounts). These bots aggressively engage with other blue-check accounts hoping for reciprocal engagement, which increases their own potential payout.

Where This Traffic Comes From​

Investigations and court cases have confirmed that these operations are heavily concentrated in specific regions known for low labor costs or lax digital regulations:

• Asia: There is well-documented evidence of large-scale click farms in Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Pakistan.
  • Example: In May 2025, X explicitly sued a group of "John Doe" entities operating a click farm in Vietnam for generating fake engagement to siphon money from the Creator Revenue program.
• Africa: Nigeria has been identified alongside Pakistan as a major hub for operating accounts that pose as Western users to generate engagement or influence political discourse. Reports have also highlighted networks targeting African regions using fake accounts.

Bots vs. Human Click Farms​

The traffic is a mix of two distinct types of "fake" engagement:

1. Automated Bots: Scripts that automatically like and repost content containing specific keywords or from specific user tiers (like Premium subscribers).
2. Human Click Farms: Low-wage workers (often in the countries listed above) who are paid to manually scroll, like, and reply to posts. This is harder for X's automated systems to detect because the activity comes from a real human device.

Summary Table: Types of Inauthentic Engagement​

Type	Origin	Motivation	Connection to Premium
Revenue Bots	Vietnam, India, Nigeria	Earn ad revenue share from X	They are Premium subscribers themselves; they engage with you to look real or prompt you to engage back.
"Warm-up" Bots	Global (via proxies)	Evade bans	They like your boosted Premium posts to build a "human" activity history so they don't get suspended.
Click Farm Workers	Philippines, Bangladesh	Sell "likes" services	They manually like posts to fulfill orders for clients who bought engagement packages.

Countries where rampant fraud is being committed should be blocked out of social media access wholesale in my opinion. At least until they are able to punish these bot farms. This should be as punishable as wirefraud and the offenders should be extradited to face justice in the countries they commit the fraud in. Of course they could just use a VPN. But websites have the ability to detect that too, and be compelled to prohibited it.

 

[Jovialis]

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/dumb-mistake-exposed-iranian-hand-behind-fake-proud-boys-us-election-emails-2020-10-22/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Old but still applies, I have a feeling some of the "Far-Right" personas on social media are Iranian-backed cosplayers. One of the biggest recently was exposed as being linked to Turkey, who have links to Iranian funding. Other places include Pakistan, India, south east Asia, all of which have large Muslim populations.

You can kind of tell too, because they use the most exaggerated Hollywood tropes that only people who do not live here would parrot.

 

[Jovialis]

Lawyers deliver closing arguments in landmark social media addiction trial

After about a month of hearing from addiction experts, therapists, platform engineers and executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, 12 jurors are listening to closing arguments before deciding whether social media companies should be liable for harms caused to children using their platforms.

www.pbs.org

Closing arguments for a landmark social media addiction case. Soon we will have the outcome.

 

[Jovialis]

Meta and Google lost a major social media addiction lawsuit. Their troubles are far from over.

Meta and Google lost a major social media addiction lawsuit. Their troubles are far from over.

The verdict in the landmark social media addiction lawsuit could make its way to the Supreme Court.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[Jovialis]

The Effect of Deactivating Facebook and Instagram on Users’ Emotional State

The Effect of Deactivating Facebook and Instagram on Users’ Emotional State

Other

siepr.stanford.edu

 

[Jovialis]

Federal Grand Jury Charges Southern Poverty Law Center for Wire Fraud, False Statements, and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering

A Grand Jury in Montgomery, Alabama, today returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle...

www.justice.gov

SPLC has funded groups with a presence on X. I'm sure many of the so-called "Nazi" accounts are manufactured and funded by left-wing extremist organizations.

 

[davef]

Federal Grand Jury Charges Southern Poverty Law Center for Wire Fraud, False Statements, and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering

A Grand Jury in Montgomery, Alabama, today returned an indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle...

www.justice.gov

SPLC has funded groups with a presence on X. I'm sure many of the so-called "Nazi" accounts are manufactured and funded by left-wing extremist organizations.

This quote has eveything you need from this article- “The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,”
Anyway at this rate I’m pretty sure lots of other “anti racism” orgs are doing something similar. Even the naacp, sadly. It’s tragic….

 

[Jovialis]

This quote has eveything you need from this article- “The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,”
Anyway at this rate I’m pretty sure lots of other “anti racism” orgs are doing something similar. Even the naacp, sadly. It’s tragic….

I feel like a lot of racism online is performance by young men to be edgy. Or some organizations trying to galvanize a particular topic; like the SPLC. Most people across all groups probably have some level of conscious or unconscious prejudice, but ultimately just want to live their lives without any grand insidious designs against others.

 

[Jovialis]

I'd bet if you see who is actually funding all of these Turkish, Nigerian, and Indian "Nazis" on X, it is likely groups like the SPLC. So they have a reliable source of "Hate" to advocate for more donations to "combat". Like I said up-thread $100 goes a long way in Africa and South Asia, and these orgs get millions. They in theory could subsidize the whole thing if they wanted.

 

[davef]

Equally as horrible as X (if NOT WORSE) is REDDIT. Reddit is the biggest accumulator of misinformation on the internet, and what sucks is the search engine version of Gemini likes to pull info from Reddit to come up with an answer and i personally want it tuned so it avoids it.
One thing that really baffles me is tr0lls like to get into subreddits for ancestry.com, 23andme, illustrative etc and manipulate customers who don’t know much about how these tests work with lies explaining why their results look the way they do. Ofc they’d believe it and they’d spread that info virally to their buddies and other customers. And bc they seem innocent, they’re not threatening anyone’s lives or throwing slurs around, they don’t get banned.