Take, for example, the heated debate over who bombed the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza on Oct. 17, an example of when a vulnerable topic became a breeding ground for misunderstanding because of the uncertainties of war.

Those who want to control the narrative can capitalize on the opportunity by using armies of bots to drown out the voices of the opposition and attempt to redirect the conversation by hiring influencers. However, when the New York Times published its own piece on the matter, X (formerly known as Twitter) took an unprecedented step in influencing the narrative ­– by removing the newspaper’s golden verification badge, which allows users to recognize legitimate official accounts.

At the same time, X is being investigated by the European Union for hosting rampant hate speech and misinformation on the war between Hamas and Israel in violation of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The EU demanded effective moderation of harmful content as long as X continues to operate there. In response, Elon Musk, the owner of X, initially asked for evidence of misinformation before considering leaving the EU market to avoid the regulation altogether.

Since Musk’s purchase of Twitter for US$44 billion in April 2022, with financial backing from multiple state entities, the platform has permitted misinformation to circulate freely following its commitment to promote freedom of speech. Compared to other platforms, falsehoods are spread more easily on X because malicious actors can simply purchase a monthly membership to obtain a “verified” status without a background check.

According to NewsGuard, around 74 percent of the most viral but factually inaccurate posts on the Hamas-Israel war came from verified users and were cumulatively viewed more than 100 million times globally. Musk himself recommended two accounts known for their antisemitism and fake news for those seeking the latest information surrounding the war.

What is happening with X provides us with a sneak peek of what happens when owners of social media companies decide not to be neutral and start to disinform their users while attempting to take advantage of gaps in law enforcement. While both experts and laymen remain appalled by the reach of the initial Hamas attack and the brutality that followed, ownership of these companies determines the legitimacy of the information they provide amid an atmosphere of unknowns in which those who wish to benefit from the confusion can do just that.