Recent decisions by major news outlets such as The Guardian and La Vanguardia and other niche publications like Sex Tech Guide Leave X A new dilemma facing global media has come into the spotlight: Should they stay on a popular platform that has become a major source of fake news and hate speech to maintain their relevance, or should they leave to maintain ethical responsibility?
Once the go-to source for all global discourse, X (formerly Twitter) saw its reputation turn to trash under South African multi-billionaire and self-proclaimed free speech absolutist Elon Musk. The ethical decline of .
As neo-Nazi and white nationalist accounts grew in prominence and racist hate speech, doxxing and other abuse became commonplace on the platform, several media outlets – but also millions of everyday users – decided to leave X Well. For them, the exit was a real solution. But is the migration of media organizations to alternatives like Bluesky a real solution or does it risk creating new problems such as ideological bubbles, financial losses and reduced influence?
For many, remaining on X feels like tacit approval of the direction the platform has taken under Musk. For some news outlets, particularly those whose corporate identities pride themselves on progressive values in their journalistic ethics, the perceived association with the controversial platform of a far-right Trump surrogate is patently unacceptable. However, the platform’s large audience of global reach and its ability to amplify messages cannot be ignored. A total abandonment could mean cutting ties with a vast global audience that still relies on the platform for news, potentially creating a vacuum that less credible voices – or outright fake news machines – are happy to fill becomes.
For those outlets fleeing from X, Bluesky has emerged as an attractive alternative. As a decentralized platform, it provides an environment where hate speech and misinformation are less prevalent. Its structure promises a healthier, more values-oriented 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 rather than promoting it – and that it provides users with additional tools to access the information and To better control the content they consume.
But Bluesky is not without its flaws. Its user base is much smaller and its geographical reach is much narrower than X. Meanwhile, its design, Critics say There is a risk of ideological echo chambers being created: if Bluesky becomes a haven primarily for liberal-leaning users and journalists, this could be the case perpetuate According to critics, the same island dynamics also plague other alternative platforms.
However, the argument fails when one considers the alternative that X offers to Bluesky’s supposed ideological bubbles: social media that is open to all ideologies but fueled by hate. As a journalist and professor Marcelo Soares wrote“X” is not a public square, but a shopping center. There are no debates in a mall.” Unlike X, which relies on conflict to drive engagement, Bluesky allows users to take control of their experience and choose what appears in their own feeds without algorithmic manipulation.
If someone chooses a bubble, it is a personal decision and 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 media change from X to Bluesky. As journalist Sophia Smith Galer observed on LinkedInBluesky is a platform aimed at journalists rather than their audience. It’s reminiscent of an earlier era when journalists dominated the Twitter ecosystem and primarily interacted with each other. While this dynamic may be comfortable for those in the media, it may not translate into meaningful audience engagement in a world where users are moving to video-driven platforms like TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. Therefore, opening an account with Bluesky, where they could interact directly with like-minded colleagues without suffering major abuse from neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists, would undoubtedly be beneficial for journalists. However, does it offer a clear alternative to X for organizations that want and need to share their content with a wider and increasingly diverse audience? Tragically,
Leaving X also has practical, financial implications for media organizations. Musk’s platform remains a major source of advertising revenue. X’s wide reach and user base make it an important platform for driving traffic to news sites and attracting advertisers. A waiver risks reducing audience engagement, which could impact revenue streams.
Bluesky, Threads and other alternative platforms are still in their infancy. Their smaller audiences and limited advertising options make them less profitable for companies that rely on scale to stay in business. Media companies must navigate this trade-off carefully: prioritizing ethics while finding ways to maintain financial profitability.
Fortunately for ethically concerned but cash-strapped media outlets – and humanity at large – Musk’s behavior on As soon as the churn is over
The Exodus of As media companies grapple with the ethical implications of remaining on problematic platforms, they must also grapple with changing audience behavior, financial pressures and the emergence of content-driven ecosystems.
While platforms like Bluesky offer a glimmer of hope, they are not the solution to all of the many problems facing journalism today. The path forward requires a delicate balance: embracing innovation without sacrificing the core values of journalism; and stick 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 the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
