“X is a Stage: The Algorithm is the Director, We are the Actors”
Today, we can view social media platforms not just as communication tools, but also as vast theatrical stages. Digital platform dramaturgy, from this perspective, treats interactions on social media as if they were a play. The classical sociologist Erving Goffman suggested that in daily life, individuals present themselves as if performing on a stage. Similarly, digital platforms like X are like a huge stage where users are the actors, content is the script, followers are the audience, and algorithms play the role of an invisible director. Indeed, some recent analyses describe X as a “digital stage where infinite content loops are performed” and emphasize that tweets on the platform function like “Nietzsche’s aphorisms, as short and striking capsules of thought.” Looking through this dramatic lens allows us to better understand what happens in the online world: we can grasp how a single tweet can ignite the masses, how a hashtag turns into a collective story, or how algorithms distribute roles behind the scenes.
Why is the perspective of digital platform dramaturgy important? Because what happens on platforms like X are not just random posts; on the contrary, they are parts of a staged play. Thousands of small dramas, comedies, and tragedies unfold on this platform every day. People take the stage wearing virtual masks (in Latin, persona means “mask”), displaying their emotions and thoughts. Sometimes they receive applause (likes), and sometimes they are booed (lynched or “ratioed”). Such a reading helps us take social media interactions seriously and learn from them. Moreover, this approach makes the power dynamics on these platforms visible: for example, we notice how the most provocative statements are rewarded or how those who remain silent fade into the background. In conclusion, reading X as a narrative stage is an enlightening attitude that makes it easier to watch and make sense of digital communication as a whole.
The Stage of X: Platform Structure, Characteristics, and History
In the social media arena, X (formerly Twitter) stands out as one of the most vibrant stages. Founded in 2006 by Jack Dorsey and his team, the platform initially created a unique medium with its 140-character “micro-blog” concept. Users engage in fast, instant, and concise communication, thanks to the character limit which was increased to 280 in 2017. The platform’s basic structure is simple: everyone has their own profile (which can be thought of as a backstage dressing room) and a public timeline. While initially all tweets were sorted chronologically, today an algorithmic feed under the “For You” tab has become prominent. Despite this, at its core, X is a giant public square where real-time posts fly around.
The characteristic of X is built on brevity and speed. A tweet can function as a headline, a joke, a cry, or an aphorism, depending on the context. According to 2023 data, the platform has approximately 225 million daily active users, and although it doesn’t have as many users as Facebook or Instagram, its influence is disproportionately large. So much so that what many figures, from Barack Obama to Greta Thunberg, from celebrities to heads of state, say here can shape the world’s agenda. The platform’s acquisition by Elon Musk in October 2022 and its rebranding to “X” in July 2023 was one of the major set changes on this stage. Although the brand name changed, the basic structure of the stage remained the same: millions of users still gather in this arena to share their thoughts instantly.
There are some unique elements that distinguish X’s stage from other platforms. Firstly, communication is largely public and open; the default setting on X is that posts can be seen by the whole world. This makes every user a potential actor on the world stage. Secondly, the follower-following relationship creates a dynamic similar to the audience-actor relationship in traditional theater: followers are like a user’s “audience,” but they can also jump on stage as part of an interactive play and deliver their lines. Thirdly, the use of hashtags (#) creates tagged topics that are like sets dividing a play into scenes. It allows thousands of people to talk about a specific topic at the same time, gathering them under a common dramatic roof. For example, tweets posted with the #BreakingNews tag during a global event create a polyphonic play that unites on a single stage.
Looking at the platform’s history, X has witnessed many dramatic moments. The role it played in organizing the “Arab Spring” protests is a powerful example of the platform’s impact on the real-world stage. As anti-government protests continued in the Middle East in 2011, activists communicated instantly via X and collectively wrote the revolutionary narrative online. Again, in 2017, a tweet thread called “Zola,” in which a strip club employee narrated a wild adventure in a series of 148 tweets, attracted so much attention that the story was later made into a Hollywood movie. These examples show that the X stage functions both as a political arena and as a story factory that provides material for popular culture. In short, the X stage is a unique environment that makes large audiences laugh, think, or act with tiny messages, and reading it as a dramaturgical stage is extremely productive for understanding how this power manifests.
User = Actor: Anonymity, Persona Creation, Viral Narratives
Everyone who steps onto the X stage, in a way, takes a seat as an actor. These actors sometimes perform with their real identities, and sometimes with pseudonyms and masks. One of the platform’s most prominent features is its allowance of anonymity; there is no real-name requirement like on Facebook. Research has shown that a significant portion of X users do not share their full names. One study indicated that about a quarter of users do not fully disclose their real identity (either using a completely anonymous pseudonym or showing only part of their name). This also shows that X’s lack of a real-name mandate is a major attraction for users. After all, reminiscent of the joke “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” we can also construct our identity as we wish on X.
Persona creation is a game we see on this stage every day. Some use X with their professional identity and assume the role of a serious expert, while others remain anonymous and express bold confessions or provocative ideas. As digital communication researcher Annette Markham states, digital environments provide the opportunity to “control self-presentation, display body and presence, manage identity in the eyes of others, and play with different performances”—all with a flexibility not possible in the physical world. For example, a user can be a respected academic by day and a political satirist with an anonymous account by night, or someone who is introverted in daily life can become a witty phenomenon on X. Of course, these performances are not always under our full control; it is possible to make a slip-up or be misunderstood on the digital stage as well. Still, many users see X as a place where their own story is staged and carefully craft their image, managing their interactions with followers as if communicating with an audience. Every detail, from the profile picture to the bio text, to the style of the content they share, reflects the persona they have created.
X’s user-actors not only play their own roles but can also be the carriers of viral narratives. Sometimes a single tweet creates a domino effect, and the user, without any intention, finds themselves in the lead role of a viral story. There is a famous saying in platform culture that satirizes this: “Every day on X there is a main character. The goal is to never be it.” Indeed, any user might one day find that something they said has reached hundreds of thousands of people, with headlines written about them; in other words, they have become that day’s “main character.” The potential to go viral can turn even an anonymous account into an internet phenomenon overnight. For instance, in Turkey, the humorous tweets from an anonymous account spread so widely that they were reported in the newspapers the next day. Sometimes, an ordinary event in a user’s life, when told in a “flood” (tweet series), can be followed by tens of thousands of people and turn into a huge story. Anonymity here is both a shield and an opportunity: with our identity hidden, we can adopt bolder discourses and more extreme roles. This sometimes leads to the birth of creative, funny personas, but also to the emergence of irresponsible trolls and provocateurs. In short, X users can play any role they want on this digital stage: hero, anti-hero, narrator, comedian, activist, or “villain.” The viral narratives that emerge from these roles make X a constantly moving, surprise-filled dramaturgical ecosystem.
Algorithm = Director: What is Promoted, What is Suppressed? The Priority of Emotional Reactions
Just as a director determines the flow of a stage play, in the world of X, the algorithm is like the director behind the scenes. These algorithms largely determine what a user sees and doesn’t see in their timeline. Especially since the mid-2010s, X has introduced “according to your interests” sorting alongside chronological sorting. The tweets we see in the “For You” tab include popular content from outside our followed accounts, and here the algorithm presents a selection based on our interests and past interactions. So, on what basis does the algorithm sit in the director’s chair, and which scene does it bring to the forefront? The answer: based on interaction density. That is, content that receives applause (likes), is much talked about (replied to), or is re-staged (retweeted) becomes more visible than others. This causes calm and placid content to remain in the background, while provocative and emotional posts take the spotlight. Indeed, an academic study has shown that the X algorithm systematically promotes high-engagement content—especially emotional, “toxic” (containing anger or hatred), or low-credibility posts. The algorithmic director, like a drama-loving director, places scenes that evoke strong emotions in the leading role.
This guidance creates striking effects in X dramaturgy. Firstly, messages containing intense emotions like anger, shock, or enthusiasm can reach very wide audiences with the push of the algorithm. For example, according to an experimental study, political content presented in an algorithmic feed is more angry in tone compared to a chronological feed. The same study found that 62% of political tweets selected by the algorithm contained anger, whereas this rate was 52% in the chronological feed. Furthermore, 46% of posts in the algorithmic feed contained “hostility towards the opposing group,” while this rate was 38% in the chronological feed. This data underscores that the algorithm does indeed promote emotionally provocative content. Moreover, it was observed that users, after reading tweets selected by the algorithm, became more attached to their own political side and viewed the opposing side more negatively. This points to the polarizing effect of the algorithmic feed. In other words, this software director behind the scenes can act like a provocateur who loves to fuel the debate on stage. The result? The dose of drama on the X stage increases, conflicts grow, and “us vs. them” narratives gain strength.
Another feat of the algorithm is creating sudden surprise breakthroughs. Even a tweet from a small account with few followers can be put in front of millions in an instant if it gets high engagement within a few minutes. This was something that would never happen in traditional media; a message from someone with 10 followers would not appear in a newspaper headline the next day. But it can on X. The algorithm, saying “This scene got applause, let me bring more of it,” spreads that content wave after wave. Thus, the platform has become a medium where agenda-setting stories emerge and spread rapidly. We witness this frequently: a discovery or a joke from an unknown person can go viral overnight thanks to an algorithmic arrangement. For example, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, a conspiracy theory tweet from a user with no connection to science reached tens of thousands of people after being promoted by the algorithm and became a topic of discussion on television the next day. This is the power of the algorithmic director: for better or worse, it brings content into the spotlight and opens up unforeseen new scenes.
On the other hand, X has tried to give users a bit more control in recent years. It became possible to see a chronological feed of only the accounts we follow in the “Following” tab, thus offering an alternative for those who want to avoid the algorithm’s guidance. However, it must be admitted that most users still consume the algorithmic feed by default. Because it’s more entertaining, more dramatic! While the algorithm shows us content we might like (topics within our interests), it also puts the most heated debates in front of us, saying, “Look, there’s a fight here, don’t miss it!” This situation sometimes turns X into a gladiator arena: the algorithm decides who will wield a sword and shield and fight, and we watch (or participate). The algorithm=director metaphor sheds light on perhaps the most critical power balance of the digital age: an invisible hand seriously affects the tone, visibility, and fate of public debates. Therefore, if we want to understand platforms like X, we must definitely take this director behind the scenes into account.
Narrative = Fragmented Drama: Threads, Aphorisms, Digital Polemics, and Mass Lynchings
A theater play usually presents a complete story with a beginning, middle, and end. However, X’s narrative structure is not traditionally whole; on the contrary, it is fragmented and scattered. We can think of it as collage theater: short scenes follow one another, sometimes connecting, sometimes remaining independent, but together they create the overall atmosphere. A single tweet on X usually cannot tell a comprehensive story but offers an emphasis or a momentary situation. Since users have to fit their thoughts and news into 280 characters, the platform naturally turns into an aphorism production center. One-sentence witty remarks, jokes, and maxims are like X’s currency. For this reason, some analysts describe messages on X as “modern-day aphorisms”; just like Nietzsche’s short and striking words, tweets are tiny capsules containing powerful meanings. When you look at your timeline, you see messages that seem disconnected but are each a mini-drama: in one tweet, someone tells a joke, and people laugh below; another announces news, and it turns into chaos underneath; another shares a personal feeling, and messages of comfort follow… When all these come together, a postmodern narrative collage emerges.
Of course, longer narratives are not absent on X. To overcome this fragmented structure, the platform eventually highlighted the “thread” feature. Users can now present longer stories and explanations by adding multiple tweets in a row. Thus, the narrative architecture on X has developed into pieces that can gain continuity. A journalist can tell the story of a current event step by step with a 10-tweet thread; followers can also participate in the narrative by commenting at each step. Another popular example is a person narrating a tense event they experienced in a “flood,” keeping followers in suspense with each tweet and finally concluding the event with a major revelation, which is a dramatic structure that often attracts interest on X. This fragmented yet captivating narrative style can lock users to the screen as if they were watching a series.
Aphorisms and short forms are the other side of X drama. The platform’s character limit metaphorically forces users to sharpen their pens, and often very concise, effective words emerge. Especially in the humorous X culture, one-liners or images with text overlays (memes) create small joke narratives that spread across the entire platform, reaching huge numbers of likes and shares. A user’s clever comeback, observation, or wordplay in a tweet can get thousands of retweets and become a line that everyone repeats. In this respect, X is like a place where millions of little Oscar Wildes or Nasreddin Hodjas are cracking jokes and spouting aphorisms at the same time.
However, perhaps the most striking aspect of X’s narrative structure is its inclusion of conflict and polemic. Since texts are short and quickly consumed, they are extremely open to misunderstandings and superficial reactions. an idea expressed in two sentences, lacking nuance, can invite harsh conflicts. Due to the platform’s culture, arguments and spats are common. A tweet is often put forward as a thesis or antithesis, and within seconds, reactions start pouring in underneath. Thanks to the reply feature, a multi-vocal dialogue ground is formed, not a one-sided broadcast. Hundreds of replies can accumulate under a single tweet, and these replies can steer the original narrative in other directions. The audience (i.e., other users) influences the course of the narrative with their reactions to a tweet—by supporting, objecting, or responding with humor. In this respect, every X message can turn into an interactive stage: if the original tweet is the leading line, the replies respond to it in a chorus.
Unfortunately, this interactive narrative often takes the form of digital polemics and mass lynchings. “X fights” are famous; they often start with a spat between two or a few users, then grow as followers and outsiders intervene, and finally end in complete chaos. If there is a statement or behavior that gathers negative reactions, it can turn into a massive “mass lynch” attempt within a few hours. According to a survey, 47% of American X users see the platform’s rude discussion style and harassment/abuse behaviors as a major problem. The same research stated that one in six users (17%) has been directly harassed or mistreated on X. This data confirms X’s reputation for polemics and lynch culture. The phenomenon called “cancel culture” is perhaps most intensely manifested on X; because the platform is horizontal and open to everyone by design, this both facilitates and encourages crowds to react collectively.
Yet, alongside this seemingly dark side of digital dramaturgy, there are also narratives of collective solidarity. Hashtags are not just tools for lynching but also for solidarity and awareness campaigns. Labels like #MeToo, in particular, have created a social drama by turning thousands of individual stories into a giant collective narrative. In the #MeToo movement that began in 2017, women (and men) from all over the world shared their own experiences of harassment and abuse under the same tag. These individual shares combined to create a tremendous impact: many powerful men were unmasked, institutions reviewed their policies, films were made, and books were written. The fragmented narrative on X evolved into a great collective story here. Each tweet was like a paragraph, and when they all came together, a global narrative challenging patriarchy emerged. In this respect, while X may seem fragmented and chaotic on one hand, it also offers a flexible stage that can build very strong thematic unities under the right conditions.
Dramatic Example: “Tragedy by Tweet” – Analysis Through the Justine Sacco Case
To see a concrete example of digital dramaturgy, let’s examine a real X drama that occurred at the end of 2013. This event is a cautionary tragedy that shows how social media can elevate a person to the pinnacle of the stage and then bring them down in seconds: the Justine Sacco case. Justine Sacco was a public relations director at a large company at the time. On December 20, 2013, just before boarding a flight from London to South Africa, she posted an unfortunate “joke” tweet from her personal X account. In the tweet, she mentioned she was traveling to Africa and wrote, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!” This extremely poor-taste joke began to spread like wildfire on X while Sacco was still on the plane (i.e., offline).
At this point, X dramaturgy kicked in: her message, sent to her 170 followers, began to be seen and shared (retweeted) by people who didn’t know her, and a growing chorus of outrage formed. Since Sacco had no internet access on the plane, she was unaware of the storm brewing about her during her 11-hour flight. Meanwhile, thousands of users on X wrote messages condemning, insulting, and demanding she be fired. The situation escalated to the point where it became a worldwide trending topic, and people began to wait for the time her plane would land. As X users eagerly asked, “Has Justine landed yet?” the hashtag #HasJustineLandedYet rose to number one on the global trends. During this time, hundreds of thousands of tweets were posted; the angry crowd had turned into a theater audience mob.
The climax of the tragedy occurred when Justine Sacco’s plane landed in Cape Town: as soon as the plane door opened, Sacco grabbed her phone and was horrified by what she saw. Her X account was flooded with hate messages. Moreover, her employer had already announced that she had been fired. When Sacco got off the plane, she learned that a single tweet had turned her life upside down. She was now a hateful, racist “villain” in the eyes of the whole world. Although Justine Sacco stated in her explanation that she had intended the tweet to mock racism and thought no one would take it seriously, it was too late. This digital lynching, involving millions of people, not only left Sacco jobless but also psychologically devastated her.
This incident reveals many aspects of digital platform dramaturgy. First, a small spark turning into a huge fire: Sacco’s tweet, intended for a small circle, turned into a global scandal thanks to algorithms and the retweet mechanism. Second, the collective performance of the anonymous crowd: X users became actors here, creating a polyphonic but ruthless chorus. Third, the algorithm as director: X’s trending algorithm made the topic even more visible, effectively pushing Sacco into the center of the stage. Fourth, the dramatic collapse of persona and reputation: with her tweet, Sacco shattered the professional image she had created and became the “villain” of the story.
The dramaturgical analysis of the Justine Sacco case shows how fast, ruthless, and irreversible a narrative on social media can be. In classical tragedies, the hero makes a mistake and pays a heavy price for it; here, similarly, a “hamartia” (tragic flaw)—an unfortunate tweet—triggered a modern tragedy. The user base on X replaced the choruses of ancient Greece, and the wrath of the global X crowd replaced the wrath of Zeus. This event highlighted the power and danger of a crowd that makes instant judgments on the internet.
Conclusion: What Does Reading X as a Narrative Stage Change?
Reading social media as a narrative stage is like putting on a different lens for our daily internet experience. As we’ve seen with the X example, treating this platform not just as a place for news and opinions, but as a theater where plays and dramas are constantly performed, can make us more conscious viewers (and sometimes actors). So, what does this perspective change?
First and foremost, the perspective of digital platform dramaturgy makes us more critical consumers. When we encounter a very provocative message, we can ask, “Does this person really think this way, or are they playing a role to get attention?” We can keep in mind that the algorithm might have a hand in a topic suddenly trending, and that our emotions might be being played with. This reduces the likelihood of us accepting everything we see as true or getting caught up in every wave.
Secondly, we start to see ourselves as actors. Realizing that every message we post on X is actually a stage performance increases our digital self-awareness. As Shakespeare’s famous line goes, “All the world’s a stage.” Adapting this to the digital world, we could say, “X is a stage, every tweet a line, every profile a character.” Acting with this understanding contributes to us becoming both more creative and more responsible digital citizens.
Thirdly, this way of reading creates awareness about the design of platforms and their impact on society. We understand that the problem is not just people’s bad intentions, but that the platform’s own dramaturgy can fuel conflicts.
Finally, reading X as a narrative stage offers us insights into our human condition. The dramas that unfold there are, in reality, a mirror of social values, anger, compassion, division, or solidarity.
Let’s end with a thought instead of a conclusion: If X is a giant stage, and we users are both actors and audience, then the responsibility is ours. We need to pay attention to both the roles we play and the performances we applaud or boo. Digital platform dramaturgy is a perspective that advises understanding before blaming, and thinking before getting angry. If we act with this perspective, perhaps we can turn X and similar platforms into spaces where healthier, more constructive stories are born. Let’s not forget: no matter how the play ends, when the curtains fall, we will still share the same world. Therefore, knowing that what is played out on the digital stage will affect our real lives, and approaching both our own and others’ stories with a little more sensitivity, can make this great play more meaningful. Good viewing and good performances to everyone.
Sources
- Knight First Amendment Institute (2023). X’s Engagement-Based Ranking Amplifies Politically-Partisan Content. (Experimental study proving the algorithm promotes angry/emotional content). Link: knightcolumbia.org
- Markham, Annette (2012). Dramaturgical Approach: What’s different about digital experience? (Reflections on self-presentation and performance in digital environments). Link: annettemarkham.com
- Peddinti, Shreyas T. et al. Measuring User Anonymity on Twitter. (Statistical analysis on the anonymity of X users). Link: ssl.engineering.nyu.edu
- Pew Research Center (2021). The State of Online Harassment. (Survey showing a significant portion of X users have experienced harassment). Link: pewresearch.org
- Ronson, Jon (2015). So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. (Book on public shaming cases in the digital age, Justine Sacco case example). Link: theguardian.com
- The Outline (2020). For Whom the Ratio Trolls. (Article examining the “main character” phenomenon and interaction dynamics in X culture). Link: theoutline.com
- Vox (2018). The story of Justine Sacco, the woman who ruined her life with one tweet. (News report on the aftermath of Sacco’s tweet and her own statements). Link: vox.com