In July 2024, Elon Musk, CEO of X (formerly Twitter), endorsed Donald Trump. That moment didn’t just ignite political discourse; it appeared to flip a switch in X’s algorithm. New research reveals that Musk’s endorsement coincided with a seismic shift in engagement patterns across the platform. But this wasn’t merely a ripple caused by user interest—it was a wave driven by algorithmic authority.
The study, conducted by Timothy Graham and Mark Andrejevic, unearths how X’s algorithm amplified certain voices and narratives, reshaping the digital public square during a pivotal election season. Let’s dissect what this means for the future of authority, drawing on three key dimensions: algorithmic, institutional, and cognitive.
Algorithmic Authority: The Silent Kingmaker
Algorithms wield an invisible power, determining what we see, engage with, and ultimately, believe. According to the study, Musk’s posts saw a dramatic spike in engagement post-endorsement, a change mirrored (but unequally) by other prominent Republican-leaning accounts. These shifts weren’t universal; Democratic voices did not receive the same boost in visibility, suggesting a targeted algorithmic tilt.
This bias underscores the role of algorithmic authority as a gatekeeper, quietly deciding whose voices dominate the public narrative. Unlike traditional authority figures, algorithms operate without transparency, accountability, or even clear rules. They shape discourse in ways that are both pervasive and largely unchallengeable.
Institutional Authority: The Platform as Arbiter
X’s role in the 2024 election extends beyond algorithms. As an institution, it exercises authority by setting the terms of engagement—both literally and figuratively. The mid-July shift in engagement metrics hints at a deliberate intervention. Whether this was a conscious decision by the company or an unintended consequence of algorithmic tweaking, it signals the immense power social media platforms hold over democratic processes.
Institutional authority here is not neutral; it’s wielded by a private company with its own interests, ideologies, and human leadership. In X’s case, the institutional authority is inextricably linked to its cognitive authority—Elon Musk himself.
Cognitive Authority: The Power User Who Shapes the Institution
Elon Musk is not just the CEO of X; he is its most influential user. His personal endorsements, tweets, and whims don’t merely reflect his views—they often shape the platform’s behavior. In this dual role, Musk exemplifies cognitive authority: he is both a thought leader and a decision-maker.
This conflation of personal influence and institutional power is unprecedented. When Musk amplifies a political message, the platform responds, blurring the lines between individual authority and corporate policy. This raises serious concerns about the concentration of power in the hands of one individual, particularly when that power extends to the control of a major communication platform during an election.
Implications for the Future
The study’s findings are a canary in the coal mine. If algorithms can be fine-tuned—deliberately or otherwise—to favor specific political ideologies, what stops future administrations or platforms from weaponizing this power further?
Imagine a world where algorithmic authority is not just a byproduct of user engagement but a strategic tool for shaping political landscapes. Platforms could subtly bolster preferred candidates, suppress dissenting voices, and manufacture consensus, all while maintaining a veneer of neutrality. This risks turning elections into algorithmically mediated spectacles, where the appearance of democratic choice masks a deeper manipulation.
For the incoming administration, this raises questions about legitimacy. If their ascent is perceived as facilitated by biased algorithms, public trust erodes. This isn't just about winning elections; it's about governing in an era where algorithmic influence undermines the traditional pillars of democratic authority.
Reclaiming Authority from the Algorithms
The fusion of algorithmic, institutional, and cognitive authority represents a profound shift in how power operates. It challenges our assumptions about democratic processes and demands new frameworks for accountability.
If platforms like X continue to wield unchecked algorithmic authority, they risk becoming the ultimate arbiters of truth and legitimacy. The task before us is clear: we must advocate for greater transparency, demand accountability from tech giants, and explore decentralized models that distribute power more equitably.
