X’s algorithm now prioritizes mutuals over strangers

X has quietly rolled out a change to its algorithm that could shift the vibe of your timeline. The platform is now boosting posts from “mutuals” — people you follow who follow you back — according to Nikita Bier, X’s head of product.

Bier announced the update Monday, explaining that the company spotted a gap in its recommendation system. “We noticed this data was missing from the algo and it made your friends appear less in your replies,” he wrote. The result? Reply sections felt like a battleground filled with unfamiliar faces.

The fix is subtle. Don’t expect a complete overhaul of how X works overnight. But for regular users, it might mean scrolling through a feed that feels a bit more like a neighborhood gathering and a bit less like a shouting match in a crowded stadium.

Why mutuals matter for community building

The logic behind the change is straightforward: when you see people you actually know — even if only digitally — chiming in on conversations, the platform feels less chaotic. Bier said the adjustment should “help clusters form around interests more easily, which many people have asked for.”

That phrasing is key. X has long been criticized for amplifying polarizing voices and anonymous drive-by commentary. By tweaking the algorithm to favor reciprocal relationships, the company is signaling that it wants to reward genuine interaction over viral outrage.

It’s a small step, but one that addresses a persistent user complaint: that X feels impersonal and hostile. Whether it actually changes behavior on the platform remains to be seen.

Creators and content: X’s broader strategy

This algorithm tweak is just the latest in a string of updates from X aimed at making the site more creator-friendly. Earlier this year, the platform revised its compensation model to reward original content over simple aggregation. Then, earlier this month, X launched a built-in video editor, giving users tools to polish clips without leaving the app.

These moves suggest X is trying to position itself as a serious destination for creators — not just a text-based debate forum. The mutuals update fits that narrative: if creators feel like they’re building real communities around their work, they’re more likely to stick around and post regularly.

A competitive landscape

X isn’t operating in a vacuum. Meta‘s Threads has been making its own algorithmic adjustments with a similar goal in mind. Last month, Threads introduced a feature called Your Algo, which lets users privately tune what appears in their feed. Threads also crossed 500 million monthly active users, a milestone that puts pressure on X to keep its own audience engaged.

Both platforms are chasing the same thing: making social media feel less like a firehose of noise and more like a place where people actually want to hang out. The difference is in the approach. X is leaning into the mutuals mechanic; Threads is giving users more direct control over their algorithm. Which strategy wins out is anyone’s guess.

What this means for your feed

If you’re an average X user, you might notice a few changes right away. Replies to popular posts could start featuring more familiar handles. Conversations might feel less fragmented. But don’t expect the platform to suddenly become a cozy chat room — the algorithm is still designed to surface engaging content, and that often means controversy.

The real test will come in the weeks ahead. If users report that their timelines feel less hostile, X will likely double down on this approach. If not, expect another tweak down the line. For now, it’s a small but telling signal that X recognizes one of its biggest problems: it’s just not that fun to be on.

Whether this change actually makes the platform more pleasant — or just rearranges the deck chairs — is something only time (and your feed) will tell.

Brussels takes aim at infinite scroll, autoplay, and the algorithm

The European Commission has formally told Meta that its social networks — Facebook and Instagram — are built to hook users, not just connect them. On Friday, regulators announced preliminary findings that Meta’s platforms violate the bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) by deploying design tricks that drive compulsive use.

The commission specifically calls out infinite scroll, autoplay videos, push notifications, and hyper-personalized recommendation algorithms. These features, the EU argues, push the brain into “autopilot mode” and fuel an urge to keep swiping. The result? Unhealthy habits and compulsive behavior, especially among minors and vulnerable adults.

This isn’t a slap on the wrist. If the findings are confirmed after Meta’s formal response, the company faces a fine of up to 6% of its global annual turnover. For a business that reported over $134 billion in revenue last year, that’s potentially billions of dollars.

Why the EU says Meta’s design is dangerous

The commission’s investigation zeroes in on how Meta’s interface exploits psychological vulnerabilities. “Evidence also shows that Meta’s current mitigation measures failed to effectively tackle the risks stemming from its addictive design,” the commission wrote in its announcement.

Take screen-time tools. Instagram and Facebook offer them, and they’re even activated by default for teens. But the EU says these tools are too easy to dismiss. They don’t meaningfully reduce usage. A teenager can tap past a break reminder in seconds and keep scrolling through Reels until 2 a.m.

The commission also accuses Meta of ignoring data about how much time minors spend on the platforms at night — and how features like Stories and Reels specifically encourage overuse. The DSA requires platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks to users’ well-being. Meta, the EU says, failed to do that adequately.

What Meta must change — or else

The commission isn’t just complaining. It’s demanding specific fixes:

• Disable autoplay and infinite scroll by default. Users could still turn them on, but the default experience would stop feeding content endlessly.
• Introduce effective screen-time breaks that can’t be easily dismissed.
• Overhaul recommendation algorithms so they’re less driven by engagement metrics and more focused on user safety.

These changes would fundamentally alter how Facebook and Instagram work. Infinite scroll and autoplay are core to the platforms’ stickiness. So is the algorithm that surfaces content based on what keeps you watching, not what’s good for you.

Meta now has a chance to review the evidence and submit a formal defense. The findings aren’t final. But the clock is ticking.

This isn’t Meta’s first EU showdown — and it won’t be the last

Friday’s announcement is the second time this year the commission has found Meta in breach of its laws. In April, regulators said Meta failed to prevent children under 13 from using Facebook and Instagram — a direct violation of the DSA’s child safety provisions.

Meanwhile, Meta is fighting similar battles on the other side of the Atlantic. In a court filing on Monday, the company revealed that four U.S. states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties. The states allege Meta designed its platforms to addict young users and misled the public about safety risks.

The EU’s action adds another layer of regulatory pressure. Meta has not yet responded to requests for comment on the commission’s latest findings.

What the DSA means for Big Tech — and for users

The Digital Services Act, which took full effect in February 2024, is Europe’s most ambitious attempt to rein in platform power. It requires large platforms like Facebook and Instagram to systematically assess and mitigate risks — from illegal content to addictive design.

This case is a test of whether the DSA can actually force change. The commission’s focus on design features, not just content moderation, signals a broader shift. Regulators are looking under the hood at how platforms are built, not just what users post.

For users, the potential changes could mean a less frictionless experience. No more endless scroll. No more videos that start playing automatically. But also, possibly, less time lost to apps designed to capture attention.

Meta still has room to argue its case. But the message from Brussels is clear: the era of designing for maximum engagement at any cost is ending.

Fresh allegations in an old feud

The legal battle between two anonymous college social apps just got a lot messier. Fizz, the Stanford-born platform where students gossip and network without using their real names, has accused a venture capitalist of playing both sides — and leaking the startup’s private playbook to its direct competitor, Sidechat.

In a new court filing reviewed by TechCrunch, Fizz claims that Jerry Lu, a partner at Seattle-based venture firm Maveron, met with Fizz’s founders under the pretense of exploring an investment. Instead, the startup alleges, Lu turned around and handed over confidential business details to Sidechat’s parent company, Flower Ave Inc.

The filing drops a bomb on a question that haunts every founder who pitches VCs: How safe is the sensitive data you share during fundraising?

What Fizz says Lu took — and where it went

Fizz’s founders, Teddy Solomon and Ashton Cofer, sat down with Lu in March 2022. According to the complaint, they shared non-public information about everything from user metrics and campus-launch strategies to the company’s ambassador program and product roadmap. Standard stuff for a pitch meeting — if you trust the person across the table.

The filing includes a screenshot of a text message showing Lu passing notes to Flower after that meeting. Fizz claims Lu continued feeding Sidechat information about the startup’s fundraising efforts and other strategic matters long after the initial conversation.

Lu eventually invested in Sidechat’s second seed round in October 2023, per PitchBook data. But Fizz’s lawyers argue he was coordinating with Sidechat as early as 2022 — well before that formal investment.

A mutual acquaintance and a leaked investor deck

The allegations don’t stop with Lu. Fizz also names Jack Burlinson, described as a mutual acquaintance of the founders and Lu, who allegedly shared Fizz’s investor deck and its fall summary for investors with Lu. That information, Fizz claims, then traveled directly to Sidechat.

Burlinson reached out to TechCrunch separately to push back. He said he had “no knowledge that Sidechat existed until this article” and that Lu approached him under false pretenses, claiming he wanted to invest in Fizz. “Jerry collected this information from me under false pretenses,” Burlinson wrote.

Neither Lu nor Maveron responded to requests for comment. Fizz declined to comment on the record.

Sidechat’s new owners say they inherited the mess

Kyle Venn, CEO of both Yik Yak and Sidechat, told TechCrunch that the alleged events happened long before his team acquired Sidechat in 2025. “No one on today’s operating team was involved,” Venn said via email. He stressed that the filing contains allegations, not court findings, and that Sidechat will address the matter through the legal process.

Venn added: “We’re currently focused on making a great product, not suing other apps.”

Flower Ave Inc. acquired Yik Yak, a once-dominant anonymous app, back in 2023. The company now runs both Yik Yak and Sidechat under Venn’s leadership.

Why this case matters for every startup founder

The Fizz lawsuit highlights a structural vulnerability in the venture capital model. Founders routinely hand over detailed financials, growth metrics, and product roadmaps during fundraising. They do it because they have to. But the system relies on a handshake-level assumption: that investors won’t shop that intel to portfolio companies or rivals.

This isn’t the first time that assumption has cracked. Several high-profile disputes in recent years have centered on VCs allegedly sharing confidential data. But the Fizz case is unusually vivid — a text-message screenshot, a named partner at a well-known firm, and a direct pipeline to a competitor.

Fizz originally sued Sidechat in 2023 over a laundry list of alleged dirty tricks: disrupting campus launches, spreading false rumors about hackers accessing Fizz’s data, filing fake spam reports to Instagram, and even paying students to delete the Fizz app. Lu wasn’t named in that original complaint. The new filing adds an insider-trading-style twist to an already bitter rivalry.

What happens next

The case is still in discovery. Fizz’s lawyers are likely to push for more communications between Lu, Maveron, and Sidechat’s previous owners. Sidechat’s new management will try to distance itself from actions taken before the acquisition. And Lu — unless he breaks his silence — will face questions about whether a standard pitch meeting turned into something far less ethical.

For founders watching from the sidelines, the lesson is uncomfortable but clear: Trust, but verify. And maybe think twice before sharing your full product roadmap with a VC who hasn’t committed.