The response to the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel has highlighted a significant shift in how narratives are formed and disseminated online. A recent study from the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public reveals that within the critical 72-hour period following the attack, seven independent accounts on X (formerly Twitter) emerged as the uncontested leaders in shaping public discourse, overshadowing traditional media outlets like CNN and the BBC.
These seven accounts—@visegrad24, @marionawfal, @sentdefender, @spectatorindex, @warmonitors, @collinrugg, and @censoredmen—achieved a staggering 1.6 billion views, while legacy news brands could only muster 112 million views combined during the same timeframe. This disparity raises an important question: how did these accounts become so influential while established journalism appeared to fall behind?
The answer lies in two crucial factors: structural changes on the platform under Elon Musk’s ownership and an evolving model of rapid, emotionally charged content that captures attention in ways traditional news cannot. Musk’s acquisition of X in October 2022 marked a turning point, as verification standards were relaxed and algorithms began favoring visually compelling, provocative posts over traditional news linking.
According to the authors of the report, the accounts that surged in popularity took full advantage of this shift. Their posts were often graphic, emotionally eliciting, and typically low on reliable sourcing. Many relied on recycled or AI-generated imagery, peppered with sensational claims like “BREAKING” or “UPDATE,” to grab attention.
Musk’s direct involvement accelerated this trend. He promoted certain accounts through retweets and replies, offering them visibility that would be hard to achieve otherwise. For instance, Musk’s appearance in a live audio chat hosted by @marionawfal drew tens of thousands of listeners, greatly amplifying her reach. The findings highlight that the posts from these accounts received an impressive average of nearly 900,000 views compared to traditional news accounts that averaged around 375,000 views per post.
One striking example is @visegrad24’s circulation of an unverified and ultimately disputed claim that Hamas fighters had beheaded babies. This sensational image not only garnered massive engagement but was also picked up, albeit cautiously, by major outlets like CNN before they issued a correction. Yet, while CNN walked back its claims, @visegrad24 did not, allowing the narrative to persist unabated across social media.
Researchers observed that these new influencers are altering the landscape of news consumption. They argue, “These accounts are reinventing how the public experiences warfare, turning it into a disorienting and emotional blur.” The implications extend far beyond daily media consumption; they influence how policymakers interpret public sentiment in a crisis. The ongoing evolution emphasizes the difference in approach: emotionally driven, visually potent tweets have proven to outperform conventional news reports that offer necessary context and balanced information.
The decline of traditional credibility symbols, such as blue-check verifications, has further muddied the waters. Engagement has become the new signal of reliability, regardless of the validity of the information being shared. As a result, viewers increasingly rely on viral posts rather than vetted or peer-reviewed journalism when forming opinions about significant events. This phenomenon doesn’t merely catalyze misinformation; it reflects the immediate realities users encounter most frequently online.
The upward trend in follower counts among these accounts illustrates the reach of this new content style as well. Accounts like @sentdefender nearly doubled their followers just days after the attack. Similar spikes were noted for other accounts, indicating a robust appeal that aligns more with virality than with journalistic integrity.
This shift raises critical concerns. Many viral posts contain “unverified rumors” or even “partially falsified” claims, spreading not due to their accuracy but rather their emotional resonance. As the report notes, “When someone with millions of followers on X says something’s happening, and the image looks real, the audience believes it—even if it turns out to be false.” This dynamic inherently alters perceptions of real-world events and deepens the divide between established journalism and the latest influencer-produced content.
Despite their popularity, these new accounts often lack formal standards or accountability. Corrections are rare, and editorial oversight is virtually nonexistent. Many users behind these accounts remain anonymous or use pseudonyms, obscuring potential biases or affiliations. This opacity allows narratives to thrive unchecked at a time when mainstream figures—including politicians and analysts—are increasingly drawing on these platforms for insights and public sentiment.
The content creator and influencer landscape is encroaching upon what were once the sacred domains of traditional media, leading to mixed messages and confusion during times of crisis. @CollinRugg’s tweet questioning a mainstream figure’s timing in addressing the unfolding situation encapsulates this tension between old and new media realities. The digital battleground is now defined by those with the loudest voices rather than the most credible sources, bringing forth a precarious state of public discourse.
Ultimately, the rise of these independent accounts on X signals not just a change in digital media but a fundamental reconfiguring of who gets to dictate narratives during critical events. The rapid succession of powerful, emotional posts continues to reshape perceptions, even as the principles of diligent, fact-checked journalism struggle to maintain relevance in an increasingly fragmented information landscape.
"*" indicates required fields
