1. Even if that were true, why is your "set of people" representative of such a large fraction of the US population that it would sway an election?
2. Even if it were somehow representative, is it more plausible that all of these people were on X getting these ideas (a platform that is small relative to other media), or that these ideas were simply blasted everywhere?
3. And even if it were somehow representative, and they did get those ideas from X, what makes you think that not having those ideas "false" ideas would have changed the election outcome [1]? People more often use "facts" to justify political positions they've already made, not the other way around.
> The idea that X had any influence on the election is laughable.
Likewise, the idea that a hammer has influence on building a house is laughable. But, of course, that is not what was said. It was said that Elon Musk had influence, helped by tools like X.
I fully expect that "Elon is gonna come and clean up all the useless jobs in government just like he did at X!" won a lot of votes. So, while X itself has no influence – it is inanimate, it was undoubtedly an important tool in allowing Musk to achieve the influence he offered.
The plain English reading of "He used [X/Twitter] to help get Donald Trump elected" is quite clearly "X/Twitter was an integral part of getting Trump elected". There is zero evidence that this is the case.
> it was undoubtedly an important tool in allowing Musk to achieve the influence he offered.
I doubt it completely, mainly because there is no evidence of this, but please do cite the evidence that convinced you of this. Until then, I'll consider the most plausible scenario to be that this is a convincing story you've told yourself because social media is likely a big part of your life, and the lives of your immediate social circle, so of course you would think it was important, despite X/Twitter's relative unimportance compared to other social media.
> The plain English reading of "He used [X/Twitter] to help get Donald Trump elected" is quite clearly "X/Twitter was an integral part of getting Trump elected".
Sure. I can agree that "He used a hammer to help build that house" and "A hammer was an integral part of building that house" can be taken to mean the same thing. So it follows that X was an integral part of getting Trump elected by way of Musk using it to convince people that he has some kind of skill in hacking and slashing jobs and thus is able to do the same in government.
> mainly because there is no evidence of this
You didn't hear Trump say that he would call upon Musk to do reduce government – what at some point was labelled DOGE? In fact, he even followed through with it! This is all news to you?
> this is a convincing story you've told yourself because social media is likely a big part of your life
It was a convincing story reported in the mainstream press. I don't live in the US, so maybe it has all been made up – I'm not there to witness anything else, but that seems highly unlikely. Methinks you've been listening to Donald for too long if you are calling "fake news" here. We in my country still believe that the press has credibility. But if you know something else to be the case that contradicts what was reported, logically it is you who should be telling me. Me "proving" it to you makes no sense. You clearly didn't think that one through.
The idea that X had any influence on the election is laughable.