Elon Musk is trying to make X a happy place.

Which is funny, because under his reign, it's often felt more like a dumpster fire with Wi-Fi.

And now, selective positivity, which is different from censorship, right Mr. Musk?

On Jan 4th, the tech overlord announced an "algorithm tweak" that would soon be hitting the platform in order to "promote more informational/ entertaining content."

The goal, according to Musk, is to maximise unregretted user-seconds. "Too much negativity is being pushed that technically grows user time, but not unregretted user time."

Of course, Musk's announcement has sparked more questions than answers.

What counts as negativity? Is it critique? Journalism that tells hard truths? Advocacy for marginalised communities?

Is this about muffling anything that doesn't align with Musk's whims-or worse, political agendas? Because if history has taught us anything about Elon Musk, it's that nothing he does is apolitical, no matter how loudly he proclaims otherwise.

Last time I heard about "Pushing positivity," Young Thug's lawyer was making some outlandish claims in court.

This time, it's almost more laughable.

Musk's timing feels...suspicious. Under his leadership, X has rewarded negativity in the past.

Remember the platform's algorithmic boost of divisive rhetoric during Biden's presidency? It's hard to ignore how this new "positivity" push coincides with Trump's political resurgence.

Sure, he may have recently upset his conservative fan base by defending skilled immigration and H-1B visas in the U.S.

But make no mistake: Elon's moves overwhelmingly align with right-wing interests. Every single time.

From reinstating previously banned accounts to engaging with far-right commentators, Musk's vision for X seems less about fostering dialogue and more about curating a digital echo chamber where dissent gets downgraded.

For Musk, "positivity" could mean anything from suppressing critical reporting about X's finances to hiding content that calls out broken systems.

It's a move straight out of the authoritarian playbook: frame dissent as "negativity," and suddenly, censorship looks like a noble pursuit of optimism.

Tayah Ali, a London-based lawyer, called him "a bored billionaire who can afford to treat people's lives like pawns in a video game-and he's doing exactly that by treating people, nations, and ideals like meaningless pieces on a game board."

And with a single algorithm tweak, he can essentially reshape the public square-not to serve the public, but to serve his own interests. With X acting as both the vehicle to do so, and his favourite plaything.

Musk's personal biases already shape X's culture, from his engagement with conspiracy theorists to his disdain for media he doesn't like.

By deciding what counts as "positive," he positions himself as the ultimate arbiter of discourse-a role no single person should hold, billionaire or not.

This also raises uncomfortable questions about free speech.

Musk's self-proclaimed devotion to it seems laughable when he's essentially engineering the platform to suppress voices he doesn't deem worthy of amplification.

The irony? X's chaos was literally fuelled by Musk's laissez-faire approach to content moderation.

Now, he's flipping the script, not for the greater good, but, it would seem, to control the narrative.

For regular X users, the erosion of trust. For journalists and advocates, the silencing of vital conversations. For society? It's the loss of nuance.

Social media thrives on messy, complicated discourse-the good, the bad, and the ugly. Sanitising it under the guise of positivity isn't just unrealistic; it's dangerous.

Stay critical. If a billionaire wants to curate your reality, ask yourself why. Whose interests are being served? Whose voices are being muted?