From Newspapers to "X": An Evolution in Media Takeovers and Branding
From Newspapers to "X": An Evolution in Media Takeovers and Branding
Opinion Piece: Examining the changing face of media takeovers and the significance of twitter's rebranding to X.
A resurgence of media exploits led by tech entrepreneurs is reshaping the landscape of information dissemination today. Elon Musk, a controversial internet personality and visionary entrepreneur, is the latest in this line. Known for pioneering futuristic tech ventures like SpaceX, Tesla, and The Boring Company, Musk has a reputation for embracing audacious pursuits. His recent acquisition and subsequent rebranding of Twitter into 'X' mirrors the historical trend of influential individuals asserting control over information channels, although with a uniquely contemporary twist.
Historically, the appeal of owning media ventures for influential individuals drawn towards steering the public discourse has been strong. From the newspaper empire of William Randolph Hearst, which dominated 20th-century America, to Rupert Murdoch's global media reach, the desire to leverage media as a tool of influence is a recurrent theme. This trend is not just limited to Western countries. In India, wealthy magnates like Gautam Adani of the Adani Group are increasingly marking their territory in the media landscape, exemplified by the recent acquisition of the established news network NDTV.
Elon Musk's recent takeover of Twitter and subsequent rebranding to 'X' may appear as just another eccentric move or a narcissistic display in his ongoing endeavor to influence technological progress. However, it represents more than just that. In this article, I aim to unpack the nuances of this surprising transition, from the chirpiness of 'tweets' to the foreboding 'X,' and explore its significance for the platform's identity, public discourse, and broader societal implications.
X: Elon Musk's Pompous Parade of Ownership
Elon Musk, a name synonymous with frontiering technology, is a complex figure who never shies away from pushing boundaries. From space travel with SpaceX to electric vehicles with Tesla to tunneling technology with The Boring Company, Musk has a penchant for projects that many consider audacious, even impractical. Musk's ventures are grand in scale, requiring not only technological breakthroughs but also regulatory support. They often stir public discourse, a fact that might have played a part in his interest in acquiring Twitter, a platform central to online conversation.
The rebranding of Twitter into 'X' unmistakably signals Musk's assertive declaration of his ownership, ushering in a new, though uncertain, vision for the platform's future. This change invites us to examine what this signifies for the future of this platform and the democratic ethos that Twitter has long been identified with. Will it continue to be a place for open, unfiltered discourse, or will it transform under the influence of its new owner?
Musk's commitment to uphold 'X' as a 'democratic platform' remains somewhat nebulous. He was known for his meme-fueled engagements and controversies on the erstwhile Twitter. His nonchalant attitude towards consequences occasionally landed him in trouble, as evident from the SEC investigation and penalties following his tweet about privatizing Tesla. Despite publicly advocating for free speech, his actions sometimes contradict this stance, particularly when faced with criticism or unfavorable media coverage. These instances suggest that Musk may not hesitate to leverage the platform to promote his own interests and express his opinions without restraint.
As he takes the reins of 'X,' Elon Musk's approach to managing the platform might differ from his personal use, with a primary focus on strategies to improve growth and profitability. These could range from preserving Twitter's democratic essence for better user engagement to implementing policy and algorithm changes or even overhauling the entire business model, given his outspoken interest in pursuing an "everything app." Musk's belief in technology's transformative power and his ambitious vision for a super app may underpin his view of Twitter's rebranding as a necessary disruption on the path to innovation. Nevertheless, it is essential to consider that external factors, such as regulatory scrutiny, public opinion, and user behavior, will also play pivotal roles in shaping the platform's future.
Time will unveil the impact of Musk's stewardship on 'X' and his true intentions. As spectators in this grand narrative, we can only watch and speculate how Twitter's transformation will unfold under Elon Musk's ownership.
The Changing Face of Media Takeovers
Studying history offers valuable insights into the present, enabling us to discern patterns that recur and aspects that evolve over time. Media takeovers have historically influenced public discourse and information flow, shaping our understanding and opinions. Rupert Murdoch and his influence on the media industry he built is a case in point. His extensive media empire, consisting of newspapers, television networks, and other outlets worldwide, exerted significant control over the editorial direction and public discourse.
Unlike traditional media platforms where influence was primarily through editorial control, today's social media platforms like 'X,' with their user-generated content, present a different landscape. The impact of media takeovers on these platforms may not look the same as it did for traditional media. The massive number of users and the democratic nature of content creation on social media platforms make it challenging to puppeteer the discourse. The influence takes the form of content moderation policies and the rules governing the algorithms that dictate what users are exposed to.
A distinct shift from the past is how media takeovers are now signaled. Historical media takeovers often led to changes in the platform's tone and ideology, but these shifts were subtle, without significant visible signs or a rebranding exercise. This lack of signaling created a disorientation among users, who continued to trust the platform based on its previous ethos, leading to a trust deficit when they noticed a shift in tone. In contrast, in the case of 'X,' the changes were overt and came with a rebranding exercise, signaling impending changes and preparing users for the new direction.
The assertive declaration of change is a bold message to the users: The house rules have changed, and the power rests squarely in the hands of 'X.' This transparency, while ostensibly inviting users into the process, also reveals the stark power dynamic at play. Despite this clear signposting, users could still find themselves on unstable ground, similar to audiences of traditional media who fretted over changes in editorial direction.
While these explicit signals are inescapable, users need to be alert to more subtle shifts that may emerge over time – the way 'X' might moderate content, shape the rules and algorithms that govern user experience. As we navigate this new era, users must demand that their voices, rights, and agency are not overshadowed within the sphere of influence 'X' now commands.
Decoding X: A semiotic perspective
In 2006, Twitter took flight as the Internet started finding its footing, and the world was beginning to dip its toes into social media. The optimism of this time was palpable – we were full of anticipation for the possibilities that the Internet and social media could bring to our lives.
Twitter introduced itself with "Larry the Bird" as its logo, set against a pleasant blue backdrop. With its innocent, friendly, and welcoming outlook, Larry embodied the optimism that mirrored Twitter's original promise as a platform for self-expression and individuality and fostering connections based on shared interests and causes. As something that can fly across borders, the logo embodied the democratic ethos of the Internet and the freedom it represented. Over the years, the logo evolved from a naive and cartoonish representation to an iconic and minimalistic symbol, but its core symbolism of freedom and connection remained intact.
Over time, however, the platform's unfolding story didn't quite pan out as intended. Rather than living up to the optimistic promise of fostering unbridled expression and connection, Twitter morphed into a complex mess, a relentless stream of trivial opinions, attention-seeking antics, unbridled self-promotion, divisive debates, hate speech, trolling, misinformation, and abuse. In response to this, Twitter underwent a visual overhaul in 2020, housing its logo within a gritty, street-art, punk-inspired aesthetic. This was not merely an aesthetic shift but an embrace of the raw, activist undertones that had seeped into the platform. It bore the markings of street activism and low-cost printing vibes, featuring dual-tone colors and dot patterns reminiscent of rebellious posters pasted on city walls. Amidst this visual change, 'Larry the Bird' persisted, symbolizing Twitter's aspiration to preserve the platform's original promise in the face of prevailing challenges.
Now, we've entered the era of the "X," and Twitter's still as toxic as ever. For semioticians, naming is no trivial exercise. It carries weight and meaning, communicating specific values and attributes. It's a part of a larger narrative that a brand weaves about itself, resonating with its audience's cultural understanding, needs, and aspirations. So, what does "X" communicate about Twitter's narrative?
Let's go down the rabbit hole and see what "X" could signify -
In films and books, "X" often represents a character with a hidden or mysterious identity. "The X-Files" or "X-Men," anyone?
In computing, "X" signifies a close command, an exit, or an error.
In physics and astronomy, "X" symbolizes unknown quantities or mysterious phenomena.
In different cultures, "X" is often associated with death or danger.
In mathematics, "X" is a placeholder for an unknown variable.
"X" often signifies the past, as in 'ex,' or extreme things.
And on the Internet, it has an association with pornography.
The list goes on. But, most fall in the spectrum of something unknown or vague to something negative.
The "X" seems less a nod to the platform's multifaceted users and more an emblem of Elon Musk's personal imprint. The platform that was intended to amplify the voice of the many now revolves around the whims of one. One can't help but wonder: Where do the users truly fit in this new chapter?
Beyond the Fresh Coat of Paint
Addressing Twitter's problems is no mean feat, especially through technological means. When it comes to free speech and bad actors, the ideal of democracy might be an overly optimistic, utopian notion, assuming too much fair play. It's a gnarly problem that spawns more complications with each attempted solution. Maybe there's no light at the end of the tunnel, and it will continue to be a dumpster fire. Despite the platform's current state, I found Larry the Bird logo inspiring. It served as a reminder of Twitter's original promise: a platform for free speech, connections with like-minded individuals, and an opportunity for change-making and supporting causes. Even the post-2020 aesthetic was inspiring, hopeful about the platform's potential for change for good and citizen journalism.
The "X" ushers in a future that's vague, undefined, pessimistic, and ominous. It reminds users who really wields the power — not them, but the platform (specifically the new owner, Elon Musk). Unsurprisingly, users are voicing their disapproval by rating the app with one star on the app store. The "X" sign was taken down at the Twitter headquarters following the backlash and legal complications. As the app navigates through changes, possibly evolving into an "everything app," I wonder: Do I want to be part of a product's future that touts an unknown "X" as its symbolic commitment - a brand promise?
Designers often invest several months of effort and thought into crafting branding that promises an inspiring, forward-thinking vision for a product. A month after Twitter's rebranding, its core essence remains unchanged despite its striking new black facade. This entire situation makes me question if we overestimate branding's influence on users and the product. Could branding, at times, just be a hollow spectacle… an empty charade?
Fin.
Note: The opinions expressed herein are solely mine and do not reflect those of any affiliated entities.