Once upon a time, Twitter was the beating heart of the internet—a place where breaking news spread in real time, public debates played out in front of millions, and ordinary users could engage with celebrities, journalists, and world leaders. In 2025, however, the platform has devolved into something unrecognizable: a pay-for-play wasteland filled with bots, grifters, and frustrated users struggling against an algorithm that seems determined to bury them. At this point, the only thing easier than getting a blue checkmark is getting scammed by someone who has one.
Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter was supposed to be a revolution. He promised to solve the bots problem, restore free speech, and make the platform better than ever. Instead, nearly two years later, Twitter (or “𝕏,” as Musk insists on calling it, like some teenager who just discovered edgy fonts) is a flaming wreck, hemorrhaging users while advertisers flee like they just saw Musk’s browser history. Google Trends data confirms what many have suspected—Twitter’s relevance has been in freefall ever since Musk took over.
So what happened? How did one of the world’s most influential social media platforms collapse so quickly? Is there a future for Twitter, or has Musk tainted it for good?
The Twitter Hype Train Derailed: Google Trends Exposes Musk’s Mess
When Elon Musk announced his unsolicited bid to buy Twitter on April 14, 2022, the internet lit up. Searches for “Twitter” on Google Trends skyrocketed, peaking when the deal was officially accepted on April 25th. At the time, it seemed like Twitter was about to enter a bold new era—one led by the so-called visionary behind Tesla and SpaceX. Instead, what followed was a drawn-out, embarrassing decline that has left Twitter a shadow of its former self.
In the weeks following Musk’s takeover, Twitter dominated headlines for all the wrong reasons. Major advertisers fled the platform, citing concerns about brand safety and Musk’s erratic leadership. Employees were either laid off en masse or quit in protest of his chaotic management style. High-profile users, once the backbone of Twitter’s engagement, abandoned the site in droves, taking their audiences with them. And as all of this unfolded, Google Trends data painted a clear picture: the world was rapidly losing interest in Twitter.
Since that fateful April 2022 peak, searches for “Twitter” have been in freefall. Month after month, interest in the platform has steadily declined, a trend that continues to this day. While social networks typically see fluctuations in search volume due to major events or viral moments, Twitter’s downward trajectory has been alarmingly consistent. The initial excitement surrounding Musk’s acquisition quickly gave way to skepticism, then disillusionment, and finally, outright apathy.
One of the most striking aspects of this decline is how it compares to other social media platforms. While platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and even Threads have seen periodic spikes in interest, “Twitter” as a search term has been on a near-continuous downward slope. The message from users is clear: Twitter, as it once existed, is no longer relevant. It has been replaced not by a new and improved version under Musk’s leadership, but by a wasteland of pay-for-play grifters, automated spam bots, and disillusioned users clinging to the remnants of what was once a global town square.
It’s not hard to see why. Musk’s version of Twitter—rebranded as 𝕏—has become a chaotic experiment in corporate mismanagement. Once a thriving hub for real-time news and cultural conversation, the platform now prioritizes paid accounts over organic engagement. The infamous blue checkmarks, once a symbol of verified credibility, are now little more than a badge signifying that a user is willing to pay for their visibility. Musk’s insistence on pushing a subscription-based model has further alienated casual users, many of whom have simply decided to leave rather than participate in an ecosystem where financial might makes right.
Twitter’s decline on Google Trends is also a direct reflection of its increasing irrelevance in the media landscape. Journalists, who once relied on Twitter as a primary tool for breaking news and real-time reporting, are no longer finding it useful. Many have migrated to platforms like Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, where engagement is more organic and free from Musk’s algorithmic interference. Even celebrities and influencers—historically some of Twitter’s most influential power users—have either reduced their presence or abandoned the platform altogether.
Perhaps the most telling indicator of Twitter’s downfall is the lack of any meaningful rebound. Typically, social media platforms that experience a dip in interest will eventually see a resurgence, driven by new features, viral trends, or shifts in user behavior. Twitter, however, has experienced none of these. Instead, its decline has been both immense and uninterrupted, signaling that the damage Musk has inflicted may be irreversible.
It’s clear that Twitter’s best days are behind it. Even MySpace Tom is watching this train wreck and feeling good about his life choices.
What was once a thriving platform for real-time discussion has become a stagnant, algorithm-driven echo chamber where bots and paid influencers dominate the conversation. Musk may have envisioned himself as the savior of Twitter, but Google Trends tells a different story—one of a platform that peaked the moment he took over and has been sinking ever since.
For those still holding out hope that Twitter can reclaim its former glory, the data suggests otherwise. The digital world has already moved on. The question now isn’t whether Twitter can recover, but how much longer it will remain relevant before being completely eclipsed by its rising competitors. Platforms like Bluesky and Threads are already proving that the future of social media doesn’t belong to Twitter—it belongs to the platforms that understand what users actually want.
What’s In A Name?
Rebranding is a risky move for any company, but when done right, it can breathe new life into a struggling brand. When done wrong—well, you get whatever the hell Elon Musk did to Twitter. In July 2023, Musk made the baffling decision to erase one of the most recognizable brand names in tech history and replace it with “𝕏”, a single-letter (symbol, actually) moniker that looks like a placeholder in an unfinished sci-fi screenplay.
Twitter wasn’t just a social media platform; it was a cultural institution. The name was iconic, as instantly recognizable as Coca-Cola, Google, or ChatGPT. The word “tweet” had entered the global lexicon as a verb, a level of brand dominance most companies could only dream of. And yet, in one fell swoop, Musk threw it all away—presumably in an effort to make Twitter feel more like one of his other companies, or maybe just to show the world he was in charge. The result? A branding catastrophe that left even his most loyal fans confused.
Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and ChatGPT had rebranded itself to “L33tSp34k 9000” in an effort to be edgier and fight the so-called “woke mind virus.” You’d assume the company had been taken over by a group of 4chan trolls, not industry professionals. That’s exactly what happened with Twitter. Overnight, it went from a household name to something that sounds like a failed energy drink or an adult film website.
Brand recognition isn’t just about a name—it’s about trust, familiarity, and ease of use. Twitter had all of that. The little blue bird was more than just a logo; it was a symbol of global conversation. Replacing it with a vague, dystopian “𝕏” was like waking up one day to find that Nike had replaced its swoosh with a QR code or that McDonald’s had changed its name to “Meat Circles.” Sure, it’s still the same company, but why make it harder for people to care?
The effects were immediate. While Musk hoped the rebrand would usher in a new era, what it actually did was accelerate the platform’s decline. Many users still refer to it as Twitter out of sheer habit, while others use “𝕏” mockingly, as if referring to a bootleg version of the real thing.
If there was ever any doubt that Musk was actively trying to run Twitter into the ground, the 𝕏 rebrand should settle it. Instead of fixing the platform’s actual problems—he actually spent time and energy dismantling one of the most valuable brand identities in tech history. The only question now is how much longer he’ll keep insisting that “𝕏” was a stroke of genius before reality sets in.
Bots, Grifters, and The Wasteland Blues: The Twitter Experience in 2025
One of the most glaring issues plaguing Twitter today is its rampant bot problem. Despite Musk’s repeated claims that he would “defeat the bots,” they are more prevalent than ever. Sign up for a new account, and within minutes, your DMs will be flooded with spam offers from accounts promising paid promotions, engagement boosts, and fake followers. Meanwhile, real users—especially those who haven’t paid for a blue check—are practically invisible, their posts buried beneath a sea of automated garbage.
Making matters worse, Twitter’s handle system is fundamentally broken. Try registering a username that isn’t some variation of “PonyBoy932064629436,” and you’ll quickly realize that virtually every conceivable handle has already been taken. Many of these accounts are long abandoned, their owners having made a single tweet back in 2009 before disappearing forever. Unlike Bluesky, which allows users to secure custom handles using domain names, Twitter’s outdated system forces new users to settle for whatever scraps are left—unless, of course, they’re willing to buy an inactive handle on the black market.
Even for those who manage to establish a presence, Twitter’s algorithm is an insurmountable barrier. The company’s once-vaunted “For You” feed has become an echo chamber where paying users are given priority over organic content. If you’re not a subscriber to Musk’s Twitter Blue service, your posts are almost guaranteed to be suppressed in favor of those from influencers, brands, and political extremists willing to pay for engagement. The result? A platform where genuine conversations are drowned out by monetized noise.
But it’s not just engagement that has become a commodity—it’s also customer support. Twitter’s “Premium Support” is a joke, often taking days to provide automated, canned responses to even the most pressing issues. If your account gets hacked, locked, or falsely suspended, be prepared to wait weeks—if not months—for a resolution. The rare cases that do reach human moderation are met with generic copy-paste replies that do little to address the actual problem.
This negligence has led to a disturbing reality: Twitter no longer prioritizes its real users. Instead, the platform has become a playground for grifters—people who exploit Musk’s paid verification system to push scams, misinformation, and low-effort engagement farming. Entire networks of so-called “influencers” now exist solely to reshare each other’s content in an endless loop of artificially inflated interactions. The more you pay, the more the algorithm favors you. And if you don’t pay? Good luck getting noticed at all.
The irony in all of this is that Musk originally framed his takeover as a move toward greater transparency and fairness. He claimed that Twitter had become corrupt, that it was biased against free speech, and that his leadership would restore balance. Instead, he replaced one form of perceived bias with another—one that favors those willing to spend the most money. Free speech, it turns out, isn’t free on Twitter. It comes with a monthly subscription fee.
The situation has gotten so bad that even longtime power users have started looking elsewhere. Many have migrated to Bluesky, where engagement feels more organic and users have actual control over their feeds. Others have moved to Mastodon, Threads, or simply abandoned microblogging altogether. What’s left behind on Twitter is a strange mix of hardcore Musk loyalists, aggressive spammers, and everyday users who either don’t realize they have better options or are too invested in their existing Twitter presence to start over elsewhere.
For those still clinging to the platform, the experience is a frustrating one. The features that once made Twitter great—real-time conversation, discoverability, and a sense of community—have been eroded beyond recognition. The algorithm favors outrage and controversy, making it harder than ever to have meaningful discussions. Verified users with paid accounts can openly spread misinformation without consequence, while ordinary users struggle to gain visibility. And all the while, Musk continues to double down on policies that benefit his bottom line at the expense of the user experience.
It’s clear that Twitter is no longer a public forum in any meaningful sense. It’s a pay-to-win system where engagement, visibility, and even basic account security are locked behind a paywall. Musk’s vision for the platform has resulted in a dystopian social media landscape where bots and scammers thrive while legitimate users are pushed to the margins.
The writing is on the wall. Twitter, once an indispensable part of the internet’s cultural and political discourse, is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The question now isn’t whether the platform can be saved—it’s how much longer it will limp along before users finally abandon ship for good.
Enter Bluesky: What Twitter Could Have Been
In nature, destruction often paves the way for new growth—volcanic eruptions create fertile soil, and forest fires clear the way for new growth. Likewise, Twitter’s spectacular collapse has left behind a vacuum, one that a smarter, better platform is already rushing to fill.
While Twitter continues its slow-motion implosion, another platform has quietly been proving that a better way is possible. Bluesky, the decentralized social media network originally incubated within Twitter itself, has emerged as the most promising alternative. Free from Musk’s pay-to-play ecosystem, Bluesky offers a user-first experience that feels like what Twitter could have been—if it had been designed with users, not profits, in mind.
Bluesky’s most obvious advantage is its innovative handle system. Instead of forcing users to scramble for whatever random username hasn’t been taken, Bluesky allows anyone to secure their identity using a domain name. This means that, for the cost of a domain registration (often under $5 per year), users can create a verified, unique handle that they fully control. No more dealing with abandoned accounts hoarding usernames, no more begging customer support to free up a handle that hasn’t been used in over a decade—just a simple, user-centric system that ensures people can actually claim the names they want.
Unlike Twitter, Bluesky also isn’t riddled with advertisements—and according to its leadership, it never will be. While Musk’s Twitter/𝕏/whatever has leaned hard into monetization schemes that prioritize paying users over organic content, Bluesky has explicitly rejected the traditional ad-driven model. Instead, the platform is developing a sustainable approach based on optional subscriptions, with premium features like enhanced profile customization and high-quality media uploads. Importantly, these perks don’t grant users algorithmic advantages or artificially boost engagement—they’re simply add-ons for those who want them.
Another key area where Bluesky outshines Twitter is in moderation and community control. Twitter has become a breeding ground for misinformation, harassment, and low-quality engagement farming, in part because Musk gutted its trust and safety teams. Bluesky, on the other hand, takes a decentralized approach that allows users to choose their own moderation settings. With its “marketplace of algorithms,” users can customize their feeds to reflect their interests and values, rather than being force-fed whatever content Musk and his inner circle want to promote.
This decentralized model is a fundamental shift from how social media has traditionally operated. Instead of a single corporation dictating what users see and how they interact, Bluesky puts control back in the hands of the people using the platform. Customizable feeds, community-driven moderation, and transparent development practices make it feel like a social network built for the public good, rather than a billionaire’s vanity project.
And while Twitter’s relevance continues to fade, Bluesky’s growth has been accelerating. After initially launching as an invite-only service, the platform opened to the public in February 2024—and the response was immediate. Bluesky surged past 30 million users in just a year, fueled by waves of disillusioned Twitter users looking for a better alternative. Every time Musk implemented another disastrous policy, a fresh wave of Twitter refugees found their way to Bluesky, solidifying its status as the most viable replacement.
Even financially, Bluesky’s model makes far more sense than Musk’s erratic attempts to force Twitter into profitability. Instead of relying on advertisers who are constantly fleeing due to brand safety concerns, or attempting to strong-arm users into paying for verification, Bluesky is focused on sustainable revenue streams. In addition to its optional subscription service, it has partnered with domain registrars like Namecheap to offer seamless custom handle registration, and it’s exploring other monetization methods that won’t compromise the user experience.
There’s also something else that sets Bluesky apart: it’s fun. While Twitter has become an exhausting, negativity-driven platform dominated by outrage and divisive content, Bluesky feels fresh and engaging. The culture on the platform is shaped by the users themselves, rather than by an algorithm designed to maximize controversy. Whether you’re looking for serious discussions, niche communities, or just a place to post random thoughts without being buried under a flood of paid promotions, Bluesky offers a level of authenticity that Twitter abandoned long ago.
Of course, no social media platform is perfect, and Bluesky still has challenges to overcome. Scaling a decentralized network is a complex task, and moderation will always be an evolving issue. But compared to the trainwreck that Twitter has become, Bluesky is a breath of fresh air. It proves that social media doesn’t have to be a hyper-monetized, algorithm-driven mess. It can be simple, user-friendly, and—most importantly—actually enjoyable.
As Twitter continues its downward spiral, the choice for users becomes clearer by the day. Do they stick with a broken platform run by an erratic billionaire who prioritizes profits over people? Or do they move to a social network that values transparency, user control, and genuine interaction?
The exodus from Twitter is already well underway. Bluesky isn’t just an alternative—it’s the future of social media. And for those still hanging onto Twitter, the only real question left is: what are you waiting for?
Bye Bye Birdie
As 𝕏 collapses under the weight of Musk’s ego and mismanagement, Bluesky has emerged as the future of social media—a place that actually functions, respects its users, and isn’t run by someone whose public appearances spark international debates over whether or not he just cosplayed as a Nazi.
Unlike Twitter, which has become a chaotic wasteland where visibility is auctioned off to the highest bidder, Bluesky remains an ad-free, user-centric platform that doesn’t treat basic functionality as a luxury. There’s no algorithmic manipulation pushing outrage-driven engagement, no “priority” status given to those willing to pay a monthly toll to Musk, and—most importantly—no suspicion that the platform’s leadership might be making subtle gestures to the far-right while overseeing its demise.
One of Bluesky’s greatest strengths is its handle system, which avoids the absurd username scarcity that plagues Twitter. Instead of forcing new users to settle for something like “JohnSmith872509345”, Bluesky lets users verify their identity through domain names. This means you can actually secure the handle you want, rather than fighting an army of long-forgotten bots and inactive accounts.
But Bluesky’s advantages don’t stop there. Unlike Twitter, where monetization has devolved into little more than a shakedown operation—pay for visibility or be buried—Bluesky has taken a different approach. There are no ads, no pay-to-play engagement schemes, and no $8/month ransom to make sure your posts are seen. Instead, Bluesky is experimenting with sustainable revenue models that enhance, rather than hinder, the user experience. Optional subscriptions will offer cosmetic upgrades, better media uploads, and other premium features, but none of these perks give paying users an unfair advantage in engagement.
Perhaps the most radical shift Bluesky brings to social media is its decentralized model. Unlike Twitter, which has become an algorithmic cesspool where controversy and outrage are prioritized for the sake of clicks, Bluesky gives users control over how they experience the platform. This means fewer doomscrolling traps and more actual conversations.
Meanwhile, as Musk’s Twitter grows increasingly erratic—whether it’s gutting moderation teams, amplifying right-wing propaganda, or turning basic functionality into a luxury item—Bluesky’s user base has exploded.
For those still hanging onto Twitter, waiting for some kind of course correction, it’s time to face reality: Twitter is never going back to what it was. It has been irreversibly damaged by Musk’s obsession with monetization, his open embrace of political extremism, and his inability to run a social media company without turning it into a circus. Bluesky, on the other hand, represents the future of what social media should be—simple, user-driven, and actually fun.
And now, over sixty years later, people are saying Bye Bye Birdie once again. But don’t worry—unlike Twitter, this story has a happy ending. As the song says: “Gray skies are gonna clear up, put on a happy face.”
Leave a Reply