By Ganiu Bamgbose, PhD
In mathematics, x is often the unknown quantity. The task is to find x: to work through the available information, apply the appropriate formula and arrive at the value that satisfies the equation. On social media, however, finding X can be considerably more difficult. Not only because X is now the name of a platform, but because once a story begins to trend on X, the truth itself can become the unknown quantity.
A story appears. Someone posts it. Another person reposts it. Someone else adds a screenshot, another supplies a voice note, and yet another provides a supposedly authoritative interpretation. Within minutes, the original story is no longer one story. It has become several stories competing for attention. Each comes with its own certainty, outrage, humour, emotion or conspiracy. By the time the public begins to ask, “What really happened?”, the question may have become almost impossible to answer.
This is the paradox of social media: information has never travelled faster, yet establishing the truth about that information has never been more demanding.
The problem becomes particularly pronounced when a subject begins to trend. Trending status confers a peculiar kind of legitimacy. Many people unconsciously assume that if thousands or millions of people are talking about something, there must be something unquestionably true about it. But popularity is not proof. Virality is not verification. A trending story may simply be the story that has travelled fastest, not the story that is most accurate.
Indeed, social media has created a new information economy in which attention has monetary value. On platforms where engagement can translate into visibility, influence and, under certain monetisation arrangements, income, there is an incentive to produce content that attracts reactions. The question therefore shifts from “Is this true?” to “Will this make people click, share, comment or watch?”
This is where the economics of attention begins to complicate the ethics of information. This is the point it becomes okay to “drag” anyone on a weekend if there would be some cash to withdraw by Monday. This is the stage perspective becomes truth and verification is considered needless.
A calm and carefully verified account may receive modest attention, while an exaggerated claim can generate thousands of reactions within minutes. A nuanced explanation may struggle to compete with a sensational headline. A correction may travel more slowly than the falsehood it seeks to correct. By the time the truth puts on its shoes, the falsehood may already have crossed several digital borders.
There is also the problem of fragmentation. Social media users rarely encounter the complete story. They encounter fragments: a 20-second video, a quotation without context, a photograph from another event, a headline, a cropped screenshot or a post containing someone’s interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. Each fragment can become evidence for a different version of the same event.
Consequently, one incident can produce many “truths”—not necessarily because reality itself has multiplied, but because people’s access to reality has become fragmented.
This is particularly dangerous in societies where social media has become an important source of news and public discourse. In Nigeria, where a WhatsApp message can travel from one family group to several communities before breakfast and a post on X can become a subject of national conversation within hours, the distinction between information and verified information deserves greater attention.
Yet the solution cannot simply be to silence social media. Restriction of information must not become a euphemism for censorship or an excuse to suppress legitimate criticism. The more useful conversation is about responsible information structures.
Social media platforms need stronger mechanisms for identifying manipulated content, coordinated disinformation, impersonation, fabricated quotations and deliberately misleading context. There should be clearer consequences for accounts that repeatedly manufacture falsehoods for engagement or financial gain. Monetisation systems, in particular, deserve scrutiny where they reward sensationalism without sufficiently accounting for accuracy.
Users, too, have responsibilities. The share button is not morally neutral. Sharing unverified information is a form of participation in its dissemination. Before forwarding a sensational claim, we ought to ask some elementary questions: Who first reported this? What is the evidence? Is the date correct? Is the photograph from the event being discussed? Has a credible source independently confirmed it? What does the original source actually say?
These questions may appear tedious in an age of instant communication. But truth has never promised to be convenient. If verifying the truth would take too much of your time, you can leave the shared option unused and simply follow the conversation open-mindedly and logically.
There is another important lesson in the mathematical metaphor. In an equation, one does not find x by choosing the answer that attracts the largest audience. One follows the evidence supplied by the equation. The answer must satisfy the available conditions. Perhaps social media needs something similar: an information culture in which claims are expected to satisfy evidence before they are rewarded with attention.
This does not mean that every disagreement has a simple answer. Some events genuinely have competing perspectives. Witnesses may remember differently. Institutions may provide incomplete accounts. Journalists may make mistakes. Experts may disagree. Truth sometimes requires investigation rather than immediate declaration. But uncertainty should not be confused with the licence to invent.
The challenge before social media platforms, governments, journalists, researchers and ordinary users is therefore not merely how to make information move faster. It is how to ensure that truth can still be found after information has moved.
Perhaps that is the real meaning of “Find X” in the age of social media. X is no longer merely the unknown in a mathematical equation or the name of a digital platform. It has become a metaphor for the truth buried beneath reposts, monetised outrage, manipulated images, competing narratives and algorithmic amplification. And if we are not careful, the more a story trends, the harder X becomes to find.
The irony is mathematical: we live in an age in which there is more information than ever, yet the unknown quantity has become truth itself. From Mathematics to the real world, finding X has never been an easy task. Do it diligently or stay away from it. The news is not a must for you to share.
(c) 2026 Ganiu Bamgbose writes Fron Lagos, Nigeria.
Ganiu Abisoye Bamgbose, PhD
Department of English,
Lagos State University, Ojo
[email protected]
08093695359, 07084956118
