Organizations are increasingly distancing themselves from Elon Musk's X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, due to rising concerns over disinformation, toxic discourse, and the promotion of harmful ideologies. Among the latest entities to announce their withdrawal is Greenpeace France, which declared on Friday, November 22, its decision to leave the platform, citing its "favouring of disinformation and climate-scepticism." The French branch of the global environmental organization criticized X for its toxicity, underlining the absence of effective moderation and the spread of extremist content.
Jean-Francois Julliard, the director general of Greenpeace France, pointed out, "X today reaches an unprecedented level of toxicity: absence of moderation, proliferation of hate- and climate-sceptic speech and algorithmic pushing of extremist content." He emphasized the organization’s resolve not to support platforms promoting falsehoods, particularly concerning climate change. Following its exit, Greenpeace France stated it would continue its efforts on other social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Linkedln, and Threads, as well as explore new alternatives like Bluesky.
Greenpeace's withdrawal echoes recent actions taken by other media organizations, including the British newspaper, The Guardian. The Guardian UK also severed ties with the platform, denouncing it as "extremely toxic" and alleging it promotes racism and far-right conspiracies. The publication announced it would cease posting from its official editorial accounts on X, stating, "The benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives, and resources could be spent more effectively promoting our journalism elsewhere."
Notably, The Guardian’s decision was significantly influenced by the disturbing content proliferated on X during the U.S. presidential election campaign, which highlighted the platform’s potential to warp political discourse. According to the statement from the newspaper, Musk’s ownership has enabled the site to become increasingly problematic: "The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: X is a toxic media platform, and its owner has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."
Despite moving away from X, The Guardian clarified its users would still have the ability to share its articles, enabling some presence on the platform. The publication reminded followers, "Social media can be important for news organizations, and our reporters can still use it for news gathering, just as they do with other networks where we do not officially engage."
With these developments, X faces increasing scrutiny from both advocacy groups and media outlets. Since Musk acquired the platform, it has been inundated with criticism for its handling of misinformation, especially surrounding significant issues like climate change and extremism. Users have reported rising levels of hate speech and disregard for content moderation policies, leading many organizations to reconsider their affiliations.
It’s not just prominent organizations like Greenpeace and The Guardian turning their backs on X; this trend appears to be gaining momentum across various sectors. The shift signifies not only dissatisfaction with Musk’s management style but also reflects broader societal concerns over how social media affects civic discourse and public perception of truth.
While Musk touts himself as a proponent of free speech, critics argue his approach has compromised the integrity of important discussions happening on the platform, effectively making it less safe for users and more conducive to misinformation. The resultant backlash from respected organizations such as Greenpeace and The Guardian suggests they perceive X as more of a liability than an asset.
The reaction from civil society organizations raises questions about the future of X and whether it can recover its standing as credible platform for public discourse. With the wave of exits, one has to wonder: how long can X maintain user trust and organizational partners with the current management strategies being employed?
Experts point out the potential risks of remaining on such platforms if they continue to promote extremist content and discord. Jean-Francois Julliard observed, "We cannot feed a platform which favours disinformation and climate-scepticism." The emphasis is clear: social media platforms must take responsibility for the content they host, especially when it involves misinformation about pivotal global challenges like climate change.
Moving forward, it is likely other organizations may reconsider their presence on the platform, evaluating the cost-benefit balance of remaining affiliated with X amid rising instances of harmful content. There’s also the possibility of new regulations and guidelines from governmental and regulatory bodies aimed at managing misinformation on social media platforms. Organizations departing from X highlight the broader issue of digital responsibility and accountability, which remains increasingly important as social media plays pivotal role in shaping public discourse.
For now, X is left grappling with its reputation as it seeks to redefine itself following significant criticism over its approach to management and moderation of content. Organizations forced to heed warning signs are making choices now about where they stand with platforms known less for engagement and more for alarm.
