Is the 'X' Platform a Hostile Environment?

It is not uncommon for certain respected figures, even among the elderly, to describe the X platform (formerly Twitter) as a toxic or harmful environment, implying that the problem lies inherent in the platform itself rather than in the behavior of some of its users. This is a common phenomenon across all aspects of life. Like a knife, the platform is a double-edged sword. Such a view reduces a complex social phenomenon to a hasty, impressionistic judgment. I have several observations regarding this issue:

1. Insults, personal attacks, organized campaigns, defamation, and incitement are not exclusive to X; they exist across various platforms, as well as in traditional councils and media outlets. Should we judge every environment as corrupt simply because offenders exist within it? Generalizing a negative verdict to the entire platform based on the actions of a minority of its users conflates the medium with the manner of its use.

2. Social life is inherently characterized by human diversity and differing opinions. It is unrealistic to seek a public space where one hears only what pleases them and faces no criticism or objection. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “The believer who interacts with people and bears their harm with patience is greater in reward than the believer who does not interact with people and does not bear their harm with patience” (reported by Ibn Majah). John Stuart Mill also stated: “He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that.” Therefore, one must distinguish between criticism and insult. Not every objection is harassment, not every dissent is incitement, and not every critique of a public figure is defamation. In this context, the poet’s words are apt: “Who is there whose character is entirely pleasing? It is sufficient for a man’s nobility that his faults be counted.”

3. The X platform has significant media and social dimensions. It serves as a space for exchanging ideas, exposing errors, holding public officials accountable, broadening participation, and amplifying voices that might not reach traditional media. According to a study by the Pew Research Center published in June 2024, 50% of X users in the United States said they regularly get news through the platform, and 65% cited following news as a reason for using it. These figures underscore its media impact, without justifying insults, violations of privacy, or defamation campaigns. Such practices are religiously and ethically unacceptable. However, addressing deviance does not require condemning the entire space. The problem is not that X is a bad environment, but that some people misuse freedom of expression, while others fail to handle difference and criticism constructively. A mature society does not flee from arenas of dialogue; rather, it elevates their ethics and distinguishes between the freedom to criticize and the prohibition of aggression.

A whisper to the esteemed Minister of Education: Some officials in the Ministry have taken decisions against a group of teachers who criticized certain decisions. This is an unhealthy trend, and we hope you will investigate it and halt it. Just as responsible criticism should not be stopped at the doors of ministries, it is unacceptable for officials in your ministry to narrow the scope for professional criticism from their own staff, or to respond to the expression of opinion by deducting salaries or referring individuals to investigation merely for differing in viewpoint. A ministry that listens to its employees and protects their right to express observations objectively and through proper channels is better equipped to identify flaws and correct the course. Accountability should apply only when there is transgression, insult, or disclosure of matters protected by the system, not when there is constructive professional criticism.

Dr. Mohammed Abdullah Al-Mutairi