From the "Media War" in the U.S. Election to New Opportunities for Web3 Social Media Platforms
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
From the "Media War" in the U.S. Election to New Opportunities for Web3 Social Media Platforms
This election has demonstrated the effectiveness of social media platforms driven by self-media, represented by X, in information dissemination and public opinion guidance.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: @Web3Mario
Summary: The U.S. election has concluded, with Trump making a forceful comeback in a sweeping victory. My previous articles have already thoroughly discussed both candidates' political and economic platforms and their potential impacts on the crypto market, and many other pieces have covered similar perspectives, so I won't reiterate them here. Beyond following the election dynamics, I’ve also observed a more nuanced, micro-level phenomenon recently—one that I find particularly interesting and worth sharing. Overall, this U.S. election has severely undermined the credibility of mainstream media and X (formerly Twitter) as social platforms. Meanwhile, Web3-based social media may be poised for new growth opportunities. On one hand, Democratic supporters will need to cultivate new, controllable communication channels—this creates favorable financing conditions for competing platforms. On the other hand, under Elon Musk’s leadership, X is becoming increasingly authoritarian. As a "Dark MAGA" figure, Musk is bound to lean conservative on various cultural issues such as abortion, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights. A dictator's preferences inevitably shape the logic of recommendation algorithms, making user attrition among opposing groups unavoidable. X’s self-sabotage thus offers competitors an opening to rebuild stronger product differentiation and reduce user acquisition hurdles.
Polling inaccuracies and inconsistent support for Harris have severely damaged the credibility of U.S. mainstream media, pushing Democrats to seek new propaganda fronts
In the period leading up to the election, many likely felt some uncertainty about the outcome—especially in the final days, when Harris appeared to gain momentum over Trump. I was no exception; in my last article, I predicted an extremely close race, expecting results to be confirmed only after all ballots were counted, potentially prolonging the process. In reality, however, Trump’s victory was overwhelming—he swept nearly every swing state and maintained a consistent lead throughout vote counting.
Where did this misjudgment come from? Primarily from the final push by so-called “mainstream media” in the U.S. For a long time, mainstream outlets have served as traditional propaganda arms for the Democratic Party and the American establishment. These “mainstream media” entities span television, newspapers, and online platforms, playing pivotal roles in shaping public opinion on major domestic and international events. However, they are far from politically neutral—most are staunch Democratic supporters, including CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS, ABC, NBC, Yahoo News, and Google News. While some claim neutrality, they share a consensus on being “anti-Trump.” Truly pro-Trump voices among mainstream outlets are rare, with Fox News and The Wall Street Journal being notable exceptions.
In the days before the election, content across these channels heavily favored Harris—covering minor campaign incidents, dynamic polling data, and even fabricating a narrative of her advantage in early voting. This naturally influenced subscribers’ perceptions, creating false expectations of a possible turnaround. The actual outcome, however, diverged sharply. Moreover, mainstream media underwent a clear shift in support for Harris during the campaign. Recall that the Democratic candidate changed mid-cycle: after the Trump assassination attempt, Biden’s popularity plummeted. Before figures like Obama and Pelosi voiced support, mainstream media expressed skepticism toward Harris, questioning her past performance. Yet once party unity was secured, all criticism vanished, and full-throated support began. From an electoral standpoint, this benefits the Democrats—but it exposes how mainstream media have abandoned journalistic neutrality and fairness, instead serving vested interests. The election result clearly shows that the American public has grown disillusioned and indifferent. Thus, I believe mainstream media credibility suffered a severe blow in this election cycle.
In democratic politics, whoever controls the media holds the upper hand—able to shape ideological bubbles and spread fake news to smear opponents or obstruct policies. With mainstream media losing trust, the Democratic-led establishment urgently needs a Plan B to compensate for weaknesses in domestic messaging. Given that Democratic-aligned interest groups include tech and global business capital, backing a controllable, favorable social media platform becomes a convenient strategy—offering related products easier access to funding and resources.
With Twitter’s privatization, Musk has effectively become X’s “dictator,” and his ideology will inevitably raise questions about X’s neutrality
This election proved the effectiveness of self-media-driven platforms like X in information dissemination and舆论 shaping. Yet ironically, X itself emerged as a loser in this media war. Throughout the election, X’s recommendation algorithm constructed ideological bubbles that significantly influenced users’ political leanings, further undermining its perceived impartiality post-election.
We know Trump’s first-term victory relied not only on Hillary Clinton’s “email scandal” but also on his massive influence on Twitter—posting over 36,000 tweets and amassing 88 million followers. After the January 6 Capitol riot in 2021, however, Twitter permanently banned Trump, silencing him. Facebook and YouTube quickly followed, blocking Trump from their platforms. Tech giants Google, Apple, and Amazon delisted Parler—a platform widely used by Trump supporters—and cut off its cloud services.
During this time, Trump lacked viable communication channels, forcing him to launch Truth Social to regain voice. These actions stemmed from利益 alignment: much of the emerging “tech elite” originated from Silicon Valley in California—the Democratic Party’s stronghold—creating deep financial and political ties. Additionally, since tech firms rely on global markets, they favor globalization and support lawmakers who advocate strong regulation to suppress populist rivals. These positions align perfectly with the Democratic agenda of big government and multilateral cooperation, making collusion against populists like Trump logical.
Musk disrupted this status quo. In October 2022, after six months of effort, he completed the $44 billion privatization of publicly traded Twitter, granting himself unrivaled authority. Initially, markets questioned this move as a failed investment due to unclear returns. But in hindsight, Musk’s true intentions are now clear. Under the banner of “free speech,” he bypassed resistance from Democratic factions, leveraged his status as the world’s richest man to complete the acquisition, and consolidated control through mass layoffs. He then openly endorsed Trump. Anyone using X surely noticed how Musk’s posts consistently appeared at the top of recommendation feeds—an indication of manipulated algorithmic prioritization.
In this political gamble, Musk is undoubtedly a winner. But X did not become more neutral or fair post-acquisition—it simply swung from one extreme to another. Now fully privatized under Musk, this “Dark MAGA” figure will inevitably steer X toward conservatism on cultural issues like abortion, immigration, and LGBTQ+ rights. His personal biases will deeply influence the platform’s recommendation logic. Therefore, I believe a steady exodus of ideologically opposed users is inevitable. And X’s self-inflicted damage creates an opportunity for competitors to redefine product differentiation and lower user acquisition barriers.
How can Web3 social platforms better capture the resource and market opportunities at hand?
The Web3 space already includes decentralized social media platforms like Farcaster and Lens. However, I argue that until now, these products have struggled with adoption. The core reason lies in Twitter’s enduring monopoly over “mass information,” giving it unmatched scale advantages—key to any social platform’s competitiveness. Simply put: more content, broader coverage, and greater engagement naturally attract user attention. Information diversity also allows the platform to adapt quickly to fast-changing real-time trends, maintaining constant relevance and heat, which fuels user-generated content (UGC) and sustains ecosystem vitality.
This dominance forces competitors into narrow niches to differentiate themselves—often reducing them to toys for subcultures. Their content becomes overly focused, weakening the network effects essential to social platforms. Once niche trends fade, platforms fall into dormancy, causing users to drift away due to lack of activity. We see this pattern clearly in Farcaster and Lens.
Given X’s inevitable user attrition, how can Web3 social platforms seize this moment? Here are key strategies:
(1) Leverage transparent recommendation algorithms and data storage technologies to boldly compete with X in the “mass information” arena: Historically, Web3 platforms have overly relied on crypto’s wealth effect to drive adoption—through mechanisms like “content monetization” or tipping/airdrop schemes. In my view, these are superficial. The real advantage of Web3 social platforms over centralized ones lies in technological transparency and fairness in algorithms and data storage—values that align perfectly with free speech ideals. Promotion should emphasize this strength and directly challenge X, rather than targeting crypto users first and hoping for mainstream crossover later. X’s increasing authoritarianism creates the perfect opening. Just as Bitcoin gained traction after the Snowden “PRISM” revelations, large-scale collapses of centralized trust present rare breakthrough opportunities for Web3. Additionally, integrating AI into modular recommendation systems could be promising—allowing users to customize their own algorithms, opening an algorithm marketplace, and encouraging UGC. Features that help users escape filter bubbles may win broad appeal.
(2) Adopt more aggressive marketing—leverage hot social issues and actively attract “X’s marginalized groups” via top-down outreach: Web3 platforms must take initiative in event-driven marketing, clearly advocating for non-MAGA values: relaxed immigration policies, LGBTQ+ rights, feminism, human rights, anti-authoritarianism, abortion rights, minority rights, and racial justice. By positioning themselves as platforms for marginalized voices during key social moments, they can break out of niche circles. Simultaneously, employ top-down strategies: during this election, numerous celebrities from entertainment, arts, and sports publicly backed Harris. Securing partnerships to migrate these influencers from X to Web3 platforms would dramatically boost visibility and credibility.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@web3_mario
