We are leaving X - Here are the reasons

This article is provided to you free of charge. If you want to support our team and promote quality journalism, subscribe now.

For journalists, a presence on social media seems to be a must. Facebook, Tiktok, Linkedin, Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) are seen as the fast lane on the "Internet" information highway. If you want to reach your readership, you seem to be dependent on these platforms. Twitter, which was recently replaced by a black "X", stood for fast news like no other platform. The Journal 's editorial team, like most of our colleagues in the media, felt compelled to use this service to reach as many people as possible. Now, like The Guardian in the UK and La Vanguardia in Spain, we have decided to leave the platform.

The usefulness of X has always been in doubt for us. "How can I break down a complex topic into 280 characters?" was probably the most frequently asked question when we were preparing our posts. All too often the answer was: not at all. That may be acceptable for breaking news. But for our solution-orientated approach, which consists precisely of being a bull against oversimplification and an advocate for diversity of perspective, this has always been more bad than good. Rarely in a post did we feel we did justice to the research behind the article. X/Twitter was primarily a source of frustration for all of us, professionally and personally.

Despite this, we continued for two reasons, one pragmatic and one ethical. The pragmatic one is quickly explained: Twitter brings readers to the website. In Luxembourg, significantly fewer than in other countries, but hey, every subscription counts. However, the cost-benefit calculation has never really worked out, even before the many changes to the algorithm, which has been proven to prioritise toxic and harmful content.

The second reason was more important to us: we thought that posting our articles on X was our journalistic duty. We see it as our duty to inform our readership about the complexities of the world, because perspectives and plurality are the antidote to disinformation, fragmentation and extremism. Part of this task is not to leave the playing field to destructive forces, including on the Internet. Too many online platforms are dominated by populist clickbait, partly because the platforms promote this content: Negativity keeps people scrolling. So we wanted to at least offer users an alternative: Anyone who opens X should – despite any algorithmic headwind – have a small chance of finding positive content. Every constructive post, however much it needs to be simplified, makes it less likely that a destructive one will be displayed.

The appointment of Elon Musk as Trump's head of the government efficiency department has forced us to seriously reconsider this approach. For a long time, X has been Musk's private and political mouthpiece, on which he has disseminated more than one message that would have made him stand trial in Luxembourg for denial or incitement to hatred. But with his appointment, the platform has irrevocably become a propaganda organ for Donald Trump's upcoming administration. This is a new moment, even for a platform that is now notorious for being a focal point for conspiracy theories, disinformation and hate speech.

While the owners behind all social media platforms represent political, societal and above all economic interests, no one does this with the openness and aggressiveness of Musk, who blatantly posts deepfakes, deliberately and strategically spreads lies and sows fake news. We know that using social media is always a deal with the devil. But even here there are gradations. No other platform has left the rules of propriety so clearly behind as X. To continue using it would legitimize this behavior both by Musk himself and the platform as a whole, however small our contribution to it may be.

Secondly, our relationship with social media is not a one-way street: yes, we post for people to see our articles. But by doing so, we are also inviting people to use the platform – after all, they might stumble across one of our articles there. How many hate messages do they have to wade through first? How much disinformation do they have to mentally filter out before they see something positive – not just from us, but in general? There is a gauntlet of disinformation before every post worth seeing. Can we accept that the dwindling chance of finding positive content is a reason to stumble across toxic content with a probability bordering on certainty? Can we accept that we are contributing even a small part to even more hate being spread and seen? That anti-democratic movements are directly financed by advertising alongside our posts? We believe: No.

That's why you won't be hearing from us on X from today onwards. This does not have to be permanent: When the platform becomes politically neutral again and consistently stops calls for hate, we will be back. But until then, we invite you to read our articles on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram or directly on journal.lu.