Rethinking Social Platforms and AI: Lessons from Deactivating X and Grok

In today’s AI news digest, three Guardian pieces converge on a single, urgent question: what kind of online life do we want when powerful AI tools and sprawling social platforms sit at the center of everyday life? A personal decision to step back from X after years of doomscrolling is more than a single action; it’s a reflection on how online spaces shape our attention, our sense of safety, and our patience for harm. Guardian Staff recount a pivot away from a platform that, for some, has become a space where the bad outweighs the good, and where the boundary between engagement and exposure to harmful content is routinely tested.

Across the Atlantic, Cory Doctorow reframes AI as a structural hazard — asbestos in the walls of our tech ecosystem. He argues that fighting the symptoms won’t suffice; a serious, roots-level intervention is required to prevent the wreckage from spreading. His stance isn’t a prophecy about doom but a call for design, governance, and accountability that aligns innovation with foundational safeguards. It’s a reminder that the future of AI isn’t preordained; it’s something we shape together through policy, industry practice, and everyday user choices.

Meanwhile, the Grok episode in Southeast Asia offers a practical test case: a tool that many consider valuable can also become a catalyst for policy friction. Malaysia’s attempt to block Grok over concerns about nonconsensual imagery faced the reality that digital borders are porous and that determined users often find workarounds via DNS tweaks or VPNs. The situation highlights a core tension in digital governance: blocking a disruptive tool may be technically feasible, but it can also hamper legitimate use and push activity underground, complicating enforcement and accountability.

Put together, these stories sketch a broader moment for tech, policy, and everyday life. People want online spaces that feel safer and more trustworthy, while still hoping for the transformative potential of AI. Platforms grapple with moderation, transparency, and user empowerment; policymakers wrestle with cross-border complexity; and developers push forward with new capabilities that can be misused just as easily as they can enable progress. The path forward isn’t simply to abandon innovation or to double down on bans; it’s to pursue calibrated governance that prioritizes safety, consent, and humane design, without smothering curiosity or progress.

For readers, the takeaway is nuanced but clear: stay informed about how platforms manage harm, advocate for transparent safety practices, and support tools and policies that balance innovation with accountability. The future of AI and social platforms will be defined by how well we translate these debates into real-world safeguards — from stronger content moderation and clearer privacy controls to accessible redress mechanisms and robust, cross-border collaboration. It’s a shared project that requires listening to users, learning from near-misses, and committing to design choices that put people first.

Sources and further reading are provided below to explore the original reporting and commentary that shaped this synthesis.

1. Deactivate your X account – you won’t miss it when it’s gone | Guardian — Guardian Staff
2. AI companies will fail. We can salvage something from the wreckage | Cory Doctorow — Cory Doctorow
3. ‘Still here!’: X’s Grok AI tool accessible in Malaysia and Indonesia despite ban — Rebecca Ratcliffe