Chronological vs. Algorithmic Timeline: When X (formerly Twitter) used a chronological timeline, visibility was more straightforward; posts appeared in the order they were made, which generally meant higher visibility for content that was retweeted or liked extensively. With 236 retweets, your tweet would have indeed been seen by thousands more due to this natural flow of content.

Algorithmic Impact: The shift to an algorithmic timeline, as mentioned in the related web results (), means that posts are now sorted based on various factors including relevance, user engagement, and sometimes the platform's own biases or priorities. This change can significantly alter the reach of a post, often reducing organic visibility as the platform tries to show users content it predicts they'll find most engaging or relevant.

Engagement vs. Visibility: Despite the engagement (236 retweets and 744 likes), the relatively low impression count of 7,553 suggests that the algorithmic system might have limited the tweet's exposure. This could be due to several reasons including the platform's attempt to control narrative, reduce controversial content visibility, or simply because the algorithm didn't find it as 'relevant' to a broader audience.

Current Platform Dynamics: The feeling of pointlessness in posting could stem from the frustration that even highly engaging content doesn't gain the visibility it once would. This is compounded by the understanding that platforms like X might prioritize content from certain verified accounts or those that align with the platform's business or political interests, as hinted in discussions about algorithmic bias ().

User Strategy: Given this environment, users might need to adapt by focusing on quality content that encourages direct interaction, using hashtags effectively, engaging with communities, or even considering alternative platforms where the dynamics might be more favorable to their content.