It's fascinating, so many wealthy and successful individuals spend so much time on 𝕏, why? That could be a pretty deep question, if you go a few layers down.

TLDR; the best I can come up with is a mixture of ego, personal narratives, confirmation bias, social validation, and the illusory truth effect.

Don't get me wrong, I like 𝕏. It is indisputable that it is the fastest to break news stories around the world, from ground level.

But I got thinking the other day, why do so many of the world's elite spend so much time on it? There's very little upside, and a lot of downside, in terms of how you conduct yourself, getting into arguments with other powerful people, who are just as addicted.

It is polarising, and can obviously spillover into "real life".

So what's the dopamine hit that makes these risks worth it? Rather than going to a beach, enjoying nature, or spending time with your family.

Perhaps they want to try to persuade others about a certain viewpoint they hold — which is largely a mission of the ego? Or maybe it's about standing up for what they believe in (personal narratives)? But how would you even tangibly measure this?

"I sure showed that random person on the Internet, they'll know better in the future"

You'd most likely end up just going round in circles with people who would never actually change their opposing view, even with all the evidence in the world. Then, you just end up wasting time, with little achieved.

And that's why I'm perplexed. So many smart people. So much time, potentially, wasted. Perhaps these are our modern day global 'Senates' or 'Contiones' to hark back to the Roman times.

In an attention economy where controversy is often rewarded, this trend could lead us down a treacherous path, eroding the very fabric of civilised discourse.

I say this as the world's elite are the trendsetters, and the inspiration for many. If younger generations witness their role models engaging in endless online squabbles and propagating echo chambers, they may be inclined to follow suit, perpetuating a vicious cycle of unproductive and divisive exchanges.

I get the free speech angle, and wholeheartedly agree with it. For a long time, the narrative was carefully controlled. And as a bit of an "anti-establishment" person myself, I like the fact that it's a self-moderating centre for news and current events.

But what I truly don't understand is this seemingly futile attempt to convince those who are unconvinceable of their worldview. Is it a deep-seated need for validation? A psychological compulsion to shape others' opinions to match their own? The science behind this phenomenon is fascinating and deserves further exploration. Because, in the end, all this time and energy spent on 𝕏 seems like a monumental waste, a modern-day Sisyphean task with no tangible reward.