Recent decisions by major news outlets like The Guardian and La Vanguardia and more niche publications such as Sex Tech Guide to leave X put under the spotlight a new dilemma experienced by global media: Should they stay on a popular platform that has become a primary source of fake news and hate speech to maintain relevance, or should they leave to uphold ethical responsibilities?
Once the go-to place for any and all global discourse, X (formerly Twitter) has seen its reputation turn to rubbish under South African multibillionaire and self-declared free-speech absolutist Elon Musk. The ethical decline of X has gained momentum in the run-up to the 2024 US presidential election, as Musk made his political alignment with Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement clear, turning the platform into a megaphone for hate, racism and xenophobia.
As neo-Nazi, white-nationalist accounts started to gain prominence, and racist pile-ons, doxxing and other abuse became a daily occurrence on the platform, several media outlets – but also millions of everyday users – made the decision to leave X for good. For them, leaving X clearly represented a moral stand against racism and hate, and the misappropriation of a platform that was once accepted widely as the global public square. But is media organisations migrating to alternatives, like Bluesky, a genuine solution, or does it risk creating new problems, such as ideological bubbles, financial losses, and diminished influence?
For many, remaining on X feels like tacit approval of the direction the platform took under Musk. For some news outlets, especially those whose corporate identity of progressive values take pride in their journalistic ethics, perceived association with the controversy-ridden platform of a far-right Trump surrogate is obviously unacceptable. However, X’s vast audience – still unrivalled by any other similar social media platform – remains an undeniable asset. The platform’s global reach and its ability to amplify messages cannot be ignored. Leaving it entirely may mean severing ties with a massive, global audience still relying on the platform for news, potentially leaving a vacuum that would be happily filled by less credible voices – or outright fake news machines.
For those outlets fleeing X, Bluesky has emerged as an attractive alternative. A decentralised platform, it offers an environment where hate speech and misinformation are less prevalent. Its structure promises healthier, more values-aligned discourse. The point of Bluesky is not that it is free of disinformation, hate speech and fake news, but that its operation naturally reduces the reach of such content instead of promoting it – and that it offers additional tools to users to better control the information and content they consume.
But Bluesky is not without flaws. Its user base is much smaller and its geographical reach much more moderate than X. Meanwhile, its design, critics say, risks creating ideological echo chambers: If Bluesky becomes a refuge primarily for liberal-leaning users and journalists, it could perpetuate the same insular dynamics critics say plague other alternative platforms.
The argument, however, falls apart when one considers the alternative X offers to Bluesky’s supposed ideological bubbles: social media that is open to all ideologies, but is driven by hate. As journalist and professor Marcelo Soares wrote, X “is not a public square, it’s a shopping centre. There are no debates in a shopping centre.” Unlike X, which thrives on conflict to drive engagement, Bluesky lets users take control of their experience, and select what goes on their own feeds without algorithmic manipulation.
If someone chooses a bubble, it’s a personal choice, not a structural imposition. Meanwhile, X’s so-called alternative to bubbles replaces connection with hostility, turning the platform into a battlefield rather than a space for dialogue.
There are other arguments against a collective move by media from X to Bluesky. As journalist Sophia Smith Galer observed on LinkedIn, Bluesky is a platform designed to cater to journalists rather than their audiences. It recalls an earlier era when journalists dominated Twitter’s ecosystem, engaging primarily with one another. This dynamic, while comfortable for those in the media, might not translate to meaningful audience engagement in a world where users are moving towards video-driven platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. So opening up an account on Bluesky, where they could interact with like-minded colleagues directly, without facing much abuse from neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists, would undoubtedly be a positive for journalists. Yet, does it offer a clear alternative to X for the organisations that want and need to share their content with wider and ever more diverse audiences? X, tragically, remains the only platform where media outlets can reach a vast – if not the best-behaved and receptive – global audience.
Leaving X also has practical, monetary implications for media organisations. Musk’s platform is still a major advertising revenue generator. X’s vast reach and user base make it a critical platform for driving traffic to news sites and attracting advertisers. Abandoning it risks shrinking audience engagement, which could affect revenue streams.
Bluesky, Threads, and other alternative platforms are still in their infancy. Their smaller audiences and limited advertising opportunities make them less viable for organisations that rely on scale to sustain their operations. Media outlets must navigate this trade-off carefully: prioritising ethics while finding ways to maintain financial viability.
Luckily for ethically concerned but cash-poor media outlets – and the entire humanity – Musk’s behaviour on X, and on the global political stage, is driving a lot of people away from X. Many of these people are finding refuge on Bluesky, meaning one day this new platform may actually become as profitable and useful as X for media organisations. Once the migration out of X is complete, and everyone who has an objection to the passing of disinformation, propaganda and hate as “news” has left the platform, serious media organisations would have no reason to remain there either.
The exodus from X represents more than just a shift in social media strategy — it’s a reflection of the broader challenges facing journalism in the digital age. As media outlets grapple with the ethical implications of staying on problematic platforms, they must also contend with changing audience behaviours, financial pressures, and the rise of content-driven ecosystems.
While platforms like Bluesky offer a glimmer of hope, they are not the solution for all of the many issues journalism faces today. The path forward requires a delicate balance: embracing innovation without sacrificing the core values of journalism; and adhering to less-toxic social networks, but without abandoning the public.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.