In a stunning and deeply personal online reckoning, singer and artist Grimes—best known not only for her genre-defying music but also as the former partner of tech titan Elon Musk—has delivered a scathing denunciation of the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. Her critique, however, cuts far deeper than an app; it is an indictment of the very culture, psychology, and motivations of its most famous owner.After a period of staying offline, Grimes returned briefly to social media only to be overwhelmed by what she described as a “really dark” atmosphere. The experience wasn’t just off-putting—it was, in her view, emblematic of a larger moral collapse. “It’s a ghost town of depression, bitterness and pictures of beautiful women doing sext things,” she wrote.She saw it not as an isolated incident, but as a “massive moral failure” on the part of modern digital culture—and of those who built it.But Grimes wasn’t simply sounding off about social media in general. Her target was specific. X, the rebranded Twitter that Elon Musk purchased in late 2022 for $44 billion, is no longer just a communication platform in her eyes—it’s a mirror image of its owner.What she experienced, what she called “great harm to society,” felt to her like a digital extension of the man she once shared a life with. Musk, who laid off much of the platform’s staff and rebranded the company with his usual flair for chaos, has long been accused of weaponizing online engagement for personal, political, and ideological goals.To Grimes, X is not merely a company—it’s an ecosystem of dysfunction that stems from the very top.The irony is biting: Grimes, mother to three of Musk’s children, has found herself increasingly at odds with both the platform and its proprietor. Her experience as both insider and outsider gives her a rare vantage point. In responding to users on X who described the platform as a “battlefield,” Grimes rejected the notion.The real battle, she argued, isn’t external—it’s psychological. “Everyone’s fighting over fake problems while they don’t notice the existential ones,” she observed. Her feed, once a source of intellectual stimulation—history, tech, philosophy—had transformed into a theater of performative rage and algorithmically amplified despair.That emotional clarity was no doubt sharpened by the years she spent co-parenting with Musk, an experience that has turned increasingly adversarial. In what can only be described as a deeply troubling custody war, Grimes has accused Musk of using their children in political theater—most notably their eldest, X AE A-XII, who has appeared in high-profile public spaces like the White House and CPAC.According to Grimes, she has “begged” Musk to keep the children out of the spotlight, and has even turned to legal recourse in an attempt to protect their privacy.”I have tried begging the public and my kids’ dad to keep them offline, and I’ve tried legal recourse,” she posted on X in March. Her desperation was palpable, her tone unfiltered. “I think fame is something you should consent to,” she said, echoing concerns that fame, when imposed on children, is not just unethical—it’s dangerous.This is where Grimes’s critique of X becomes inseparable from her critique of Elon Musk himself. In her view, X—the platform—is the digital manifestation of Musk’s worldview: aggressive, performative, chaotic, unfiltered, and often immune to empathy. And just like his political antics or business decisions, the effects are not limited to abstract ideas; they ripple through human lives, including the lives of children.In a particularly disturbing moment earlier this year, Grimes was forced to use the very platform she detests to publicly plead with Musk over a child’s medical emergency. “Plz respond about our child’s medical crisis,” she wrote. “I am sorry to do this publicly but it is no longer acceptable to ignore this situation.”Her public appeal highlights a brutal irony: even the mother of Musk’s own children must resort to digital outcries to capture his attention—on a platform he owns.Following the birth of their third child, Techno, Grimes filed suit against Musk in California, seeking legal clarity and parental rights. Musk retaliated by filing his own case in Texas, the state where his businesses are headquartered and where legal systems may favor him. Although the case was later quietly settled, Grimes revealed that the ordeal left her nearly bankrupt and unable to continue her creative work. For a woman whose artistic career once thrived on independence and rebellion, the experience has been emotionally and financially devastating.Her commentary in a February interview with Time reflected the exhaustion and disillusionment she now feels. “I would really like people to stop posting images of my kid everywhere,” she said. “I think fame is something you should consent to.” And yet, despite all her efforts to shield her children, the machinery of online spectacle keeps pulling them back into its orbit—often at the hand of their own father.Grimes’s critique of X, then, is more than a cultural observation. It is a form of resistance, a warning shot from someone who has lived at the intersection of technological power and personal vulnerability. Her story underscores a chilling truth: in the world Elon Musk has helped shape, even those closest to him are not spared from exploitation.X, under Musk’s reign, has become the stage for performative politics, ego-driven declarations, and algorithm-fed outrage. But for Grimes, it’s also a reminder of a more intimate battle—a mother’s fight to protect her children, a woman’s struggle to be heard over the roar of digital noise, and an artist’s plea to preserve meaning in a world increasingly defined by chaos.In the end, the platform and the man behind it appear indistinguishable. To Grimes, they are reflections of one another—both enthralling, both powerful, both toxic. And she, perhaps more than anyone else, knows the price of getting too close.
SH0CKING REVEAL: 14 children, multiple women, zero emotional entanglement — Elon Musk runs fatherhood like a corporation! His romantic life is built on contracts, not commitment.
