What’s in a name? Well, thanks to Elon Musk, we might be able to answer that question with some degree of certainty. The tech mogul’s takeover of Twitter, which he promptly renamed X, has proved to be one of the most controversial business acquisitions of the 21st century.

The rebranding of the beloved ‘Bird App’ is just one of many changes introduced by the billionaire owner during his tenure. The employment structure was completely overhauled. The introduction of the ‘For You’ tab has amplified popular posts people may not have otherwise seen. You can now conduct phone calls through direct messages and, for about $11 a month, a ‘blue tick’ can be purchased – allowing subscribers to have their posts take precedence over non-verified members, and granting them exclusive access to an edit function.

The block button is, to all intents and purposes, gone. And, according to recently released data, millions of the platform’s users have followed suit. An X-odus, of sorts…

According to X’s own user-base reports, the number of active users in the EU dropped by seven million between July 2023 and July 2024. Figures from the Financial Times also show a steeper drop-off in the US and UK, where active users have declined by one-fifth and one-third respectively.

Although Musk and his acolytes will contest these figures, he may find it harder to debate what is happening over at a rival platform. BlueSky, long seen as an alternative to X, has experienced an uptick in users recently. Their account numbers have soared, going from nine million in September, to 15.5 million in November.

This radical influx of 5.5 million users in the last two months has been super-charged by 700,000 new members who signed up in the previous week, following the US Election. Although many who joined in the Twitter era remain loyal to X, these shifts in the sands may be a sign of things to come.

Why are our social media habits changing?

There are many reasons why people are reconsidering their presence on social media. Ironically, one of the most viral trends in recent years is the ‘digital detox’, which encourages people to dramatically reduce their screen time and use the internet as a productivity tool.

The uptake of this movement, especially among Gen Z and younger adults, demonstrates that there is a real appetite for resetting our relationship with the online world. Taking the same website as an example, the user experience on X has changed dramatically over the past few years. A lot of that is down to the changes brought in by the new ownership – which may have also exacerbated a few of the nastier elements we have come to associate with social media.

Musk, now an appointee to the next US Government, has built his digital empire on the foundation of free speech. That has led to highly-controversial figures formerly banned from the platform being allowed to return. Far-right agitators, and those on the ‘extreme’ ends of the political spectrum saw their account suspensions lifted. And, in exchange for buying a blue tick, their posts have been able to reach a wider audience.

For many, this has toxified the environment. Reports of a sharp rise in hate speech on X are widespread. Sites like BlueSky, and even Threads – the off-shoot of the Meta Group which currently has 33 million active users – are now looking to capitalise on a growing market of consumers who are open to ditching what was once familiar, in favour of something representing a fresh start.

Seeking safety and sanctuary on social media

This fledgling migration isn’t without its pitfalls, however. As social media platforms grow, they eventually draw in the bad faith actors they were initially designed to avoid.

Professor Andy Tattersall, Information Specialist from the University of Sheffield, believes sites like BlueSky cannot guarantee a safer user experience in the long term, unless they take a different approach to ownership and moderation:

“The problem for Bluesky [and other similar sites] is that once a platform gains traction it also attracts those with bad intent. Think of it as the one nice, cool bar in town that suddenly becomes popular. Once everyone hears about the bar, the troublemakers start to arrive.

“When that happens, the good people have to find a bar elsewhere. Once an alternative platform becomes a means to reach many millions, the people that drove users away from X may head there like moths to a light.

“The newer platforms might find themselves a safer haven for now, but that is likely to change if lessons around ownership, funding and moderation are not learned.”

How new laws will radically change the social media landscape

Whether it’s the pursuit of a detox, or a change in personal online habits, the immediate approach to seeking a safe space on social media features some form of withdrawal. But what happens when that freedom of choice becomes a mandate by law?

Across the world, governments are clamping down on who is allowed to access certain platforms, and introducing restrictions that largely affect children and teenagers. In 2023, France passed legislation that forbids those aged under 15 from using social media unless they have parental consent. The US states of Arkansas and Texas have also enacted these laws, giving parents the final say on whether their kids can create social media accounts. However, one country is set to take things up a gear.

This month, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed that he would seek to enforce a complete ban on all social media use for those under 16. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and our old friend X, will all be included in this ‘digital prohibition’. The proposals are due to be ratified by Parliament in the next 12 months, and rather than criminalising breaches, the onus will instead be on social media companies to prevent kids bypassing these restrictions.

However, Lisa Given, Professor of Informational Sciences at RMIT University, isn’t convinced that these blanket bans will have the desired impact:

“[Y]oung people… may find workarounds… by using an older person’s account on a home computer or using a VPN to create an account.

“The legislation will not ask technology companies to provide other protections for users (such as being able to report or blocking content) to identify inappropriate content.

”Because of all of this, the ban will ultimately give parents a false sense of security, while preventing young people from accessing important information.”

The arguments for and against banning children from social media

State intervention is not without its drawbacks. A recent Ofcom survey found that 20-30% of teens aged between 12 and 15 use TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and X as a news source. It is argued that denying them access to these platforms will effectively shut some children off from the outside world. That claim, however, can be undermined by using data from the same report. It also shows teenagers tend not to have any clear preference for a ‘most important’ news source, with 36% using the BBC to keep up with current affairs – which is a higher percentage than any of the aforementioned social media platforms.

There are more emotive arguments to factor in, as well. Youngsters can learn a lot about their interests, their passions, and themselves through social media. It can be a tool for knowledge expansion and friendship building. Banning them from these sites would remove a large part of their communication infrastructure. There are also moral and ethical implications regarding a child’s rights to freedom, and the spectre of government overreach doesn’t sit well with many parents, who ultimately see themselves as the final and decisive authority on what is best for their kids.

Will outlawing these platforms benefit children? The jury is out…

With the world’s first national social media ban for children pencilled in for 2025, all platforms may face the same problems currently haunting X. A combination of voluntary and involuntary withdrawals threatens to disrupt the landscape once more. Questions remain over the justification of such measures, though. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Senior Research Fellow from the University of Wollongong, believes that the methodology backing these bans is flawed:

“[F]ew, if any of these studies involve interventions or outcomes that can be measured objectively… This creates a range of obvious biases, not least because people may report feeling differently based on whether they were asked to make changes in their life or not.

“[N]one of the studies looked at teenagers. At present, there is simply no reliable evidence that getting teenagers to use social media less has an impact on their mental health.

“Does reducing social media improve teen mental health? With the current evidence, we don’t think there’s any way to know.”

For now, we will have to wait and see what effect – if any – these measures will have.