Alan Wolk’s Post

Today, The Guardian announced it would no longer share articles on X, calling it a "toxic media platform". In their parting blog, Guarding editors write the "benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives", and "X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work." As a publisher, I've always had a conflicted relationship with Twitter/X – it never drove any traffic, but it still felt important to share articles on. Mostly because other journalists were/are on it, I think. Now that it has devolved into a total right-wing conspiratorial shit show with obvious political motives (especially in the For You feed), the question looms bigger than ever before: should a publisher of reliable news stay on X or not? For a publisher with brand recognition like the Guardian the question might be easier to answer than for a tiny news operations operating in a niche (albeit a very relevant one) like EUobserver. Here are my arguments: Against leaving: - We do get a couple thousand views/month from X - Sometimes stories catch on with an unexpected audience - We have a ton of followers (which sounds impressive to advertisers) - Some people might be exposed to news we publish who otherwise would not be - Leaving helps create diverging news realities for readers - We have a legacy audience we might not reach anymore For leaving: - It's a hell site full of conspiracies, videos of atrocities and obvious bots promoting shitty world views - Anything we post serves to make X's owner Elon Musk more money - We don't get that much traffic from it - There are a bunch of alternatives - Would rather have people subscribing to our newsletter - We don't rely on publishing viral stories - Our world view doesn't align (so we don't get much traction anyway) What do you think? I'm not publisher thirst trapping here, honestly uncertain about what the right thing to do is.

"We don't really have a replacement for X yet" Kind of... Bluesky is similar to Twitter 10 years ago, but it's quickly improving - there's even a Tweetdeck look-alike made in Brazil that's quite good. There's still a lot of ground to cover, but I do believe it could be a decent replacement. But two things here: No network is like the previous one, even if similar of sorts. We'll always have to adapt. We did in in Brazil when we stopped using Orkut and migrated to Facebook. Also, for any network to replace X we need people. Millions of Brazilians flocked to Bluesky, but few foreign accounts are there, so once X is back in Brazil I'm not sure people will just say "well, I don't care abut X." It's all a matter of people actually migrating. But as you said, we, journalists, can't just quit Twitter. To follow the genocide in Gaza and the future genocide in Lebanon we still need X. To follow many relevant accounts, particularly on geopolitics, we still need X. If we want an alternative to X, we need mass migration to Bluesky. But why Bluesky? Because Threads not only does not have a chronological timeline, being a complete mess, but it also engages through hate. It's the same logic of X. So it's not an alternative. It'll soon be filled with nazi speech just like X - plus countless profiles I couldn't care less, but are actively recommended to me to the point I can barely see what people I actually follow post. Mastodon is for nerds. I'm not saying it as a bad thing, but it's just not good enough for the regular user. In the future I'd love to see interoperability between Mastodon and Bluesky (it's possible, there are already some initiatives to link both ecosystems, but still needs work) and, above all, new ways to use Bluesky's ecosystem based on the principle of interoperability - something the EU should foster more. #Euinfluencer #Bluesky #Twitter #X #SocialMedia #Network #Interoperability #Politics #Speech #EU

I understand the debate about free speech, censorship, and moderation in social media. It's important, but it's often fueled by opinion rather than data. A new study finds that "while only 3% of active accounts are toxic, they produce 33% of all content. Furthermore, 74% of all online conflicts are started in just 1% of communities, and 0.1% of users shared 80% of fake news." This tiny minority is driving severe implications: "Not only does this extreme minority stir discontent, spread misinformation, and spark outrage online, they also bias the meta-perceptions of most users who passively 'lurk' online. This can lead to false polarization and pluralistic ignorance, which are linked to a number of problems including drug and alcohol use, intergroup hostility, and support for authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, exposure to extreme content can normalize unhealthy and dangerous behavior. For example, teens exposed to extreme content related to alcohol consumption thought dangerous alcohol consumption was normative." The complete study is locked behind a paywall, but an extensive and interesting Introduction is available to read. I cannot tell you what the researchers conclude, but as someone professionally engaged in social media for much of the past twenty years, I'll share my thoughts: Moderation is essential. It is well established that social norms make real-world communities successful, so suggesting there are no norms that should be enforced in social media makes little sense. One way to evaluate this could be to look at X/Twitter. Elon Musk famously removed some of the social platform's prior safety policies and invited back well-known accounts previously banned for violating Twitter's rules. The impact has been demonstrably poor. X/Twitter has lost a sizable amount of traffic (https://lnkd.in/gyc97cv8.) As a result, ad revenue has plummeted (https://lnkd.in/gSW2NmWA.). And X/Twitter's reputation has taken a beating, which YouGov finds is due, in part, to “too much freedom” to post offensive or harmful content on X (https://lnkd.in/gEFmyKcM). Successful communities, both online and off, have rules that are enforced. Just as lying, spreading misinformation, and abusing people would be unacceptable in the cafeteria at work or a public park, so too is it problematic online. When "free speech" is permitted to become harmful and abusive, people leave social platforms just as they'd exit a physical space where someone is harassing them. https://lnkd.in/gFiBbmqV

The effects of deliberate #disinformation and mistaken #misinformation are devastating and far-reaching, but the perpetrators spreading it are relatively few, say this report: "While only 3% of active accounts are toxic, they produce 33% of all content. Furthermore, 74% of all online conflicts are started in just 1% of communities, and 0.1% of users shared 80% of fake news." #trustandsafety #medialiteracy #socialmedia

Some thoughts on X and microblogs after a successful #EUinfluencer 2024.   🔵 There’s power in a non-show of hands! At the start of this year's #EUinfluencer event ZN's Philip Weiss asked the audience what social media they used. When it came to X there were very few arms in the air. Perhaps audience members were ashamed to admit using Elon Musk's platform in public. That's still a good result. Stigma over using X has started to set in. Even in never-rock-the-boat Brussels.   🔵 We don't really have a replacement for X yet. But many journalists are posting less there. In the US a good chunk of the media already has transitioned to other microblogs like Bluesky Social and Threads for news and hot takes. Likewise in the British media — being active on X has become even less acceptable since Musk amplified neofascist and white supremacist talk of civil war this summer.   🔵 That said, journalists still need to use X to retrieve comments from politicos and authorities who haven't moved. Hence the stickiness ("path dependency" as Theresa Fallon said at #EUinfluencer). And then there are those who say that X's reach provides a way for dissidents to reach large audiences, so don't mess. Sure. But like Trump and Orbán, Musk wants to irrevocably alter our democracies in ways that risk destroying them. Musk already re-platformed some of the most hateful people on earth when he bought Twitter expressly ruining an emergent global town square. Nobody is stopping anyone from still posting to X. What people like me are pleading for is to keep thinking creatively about how to diminish the draw of Musk's platform in favour of something better. Invoking free-speech arguments (yawn) to say "don't mess with X" is consciously or unconsciously giving aid and comfort to Musk's depraved views.   🔵 That's why what Jon Worth said at #EUinfluencer is so important. He called on incoming MEPs and members of the European Commission to make the transition to other microblogs. Because unless they do so then journalists (hands up, I'm one) will feel obligated to keep following on X along with the concomitant temptation to engage amid the swamp of Nazis and hate-mongers. Indeed a failure by an EU public figure to move their social media presence to an X-alternative makes them "a follower and a coward," Jon wrote on his blog shortly before #EUinfluencer. "Act like a leader, stand up for your ethics, gain some respect — and then people perhaps should be led by you," he implored. Check. 🔵 In any case the discretion Team Musk has is scary. During #EUinfluencer, the organiser, ZN, saw it's X account temporarily go down prompting talk of shadow-banning. My ideal microblog would be X re-rebranded, put in public trust, and offering follower-ship portability and full federation with other microblogs. Pie-in-the-sky perhaps. But there's value in discussing how we still can avoid dystopian public spheres.

Do we think social media platforms should be values-neutral or should they reflect commonly held ethical values of society? And what happens when significant sections of society appear to be less attached to previously entrenched values such as truth and civility? I ask the question as The Guardian becomes the latest company to abandon X (formerly Twitter), following others that have found the platform’s stance—that is, laissez faire approach—on hate speech, political disinformation and other toxic content to be incompatible with their values. We’ve witnessed the so-called “Culture Wars”, in which far-right activists have waged war on any section of society, opinion or initiative deemed too “woke.” I shudder to think whether we may be on the brink of the “Values Wars,” where organizations or individuals holding values traditionally seen as marks of human decency—compassion, honesty, competence and reliability, benevolence, etc.—will be dismissed as “weak,” “soft” or otherwise lacking “manly qualities” (adjectival choice deliberate). What do you think? How should social media platforms operate in an age of polarization? #ethics #values #socialmedia

The Guardian has left Twitter, I have too. Again. Another good reason to do that, apart from a signal of protest, is that according to CNet Musk has again weakened privacy, as follows: "After threatening to change the way the blocking features works for more than a year, Elon Musk's plan finally took effect this week, as X users who have been blocked by other accounts can now view those users' posts. "The X engineering team account announced that the change had begun on Saturday, Nov. 2, and earlier this week, CNET was able to verify that the change had taken place for multiple test accounts. While blocked users can now see your X posts, they cannot reply to them or repost them, nor can they send you direct messages. "Privacy advocates and domestic violence survivors have strongly objected to the change to the blocking features, and it's not clear yet whether it will run afoul of the app stores -- Google Play Store and Apple's App Store both require "user-generated content" to including blocking features -- but if you want to prevent specific people from seeing your posts, you'll now either need to lock down your X account completely or find a different social media service." If you want to delete it, they also tell you how in the link below. BTW, it isn't possible to delete it immediately, you have to deactivate it and then wait 30 days when it will then be deleted. https://lnkd.in/eUWVCG6x https://lnkd.in/e5Kq557m

𝙎𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙈𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝘼𝙗𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙤𝙣 𝙓 (ex-Twitter) ? 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙄𝙨 𝙃𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙐𝙥 🔥 In recent weeks, we’ve seen a growing exodus of media outlets from X (formerly Twitter). Following The Guardian and La Vanguardia, French publications Ouest-France and Sud Ouest have also pulled the plug on their accounts. Their reasoning? X has become, in their words, a “toxic media platform” and a “hub for disinformation.” And they’re not alone in their concerns. Elon Musk’s recent moves—like amplifying certain political messages, including Donald Trump’s tweets, by a jaw-dropping 1,000x 📈—have left many questioning the platform’s direction. For these media companies, the risks of staying seem to outweigh the benefits. But is leaving really the best choice? 🤔 The Risks of Staying: Credibility on the Line 🚫 For many outlets, the decision to leave comes down to protecting their brand. Being on X means navigating a platform that often amplifies disinformation and toxic behavior. Sharing space with dubious accounts can erode public trust, and the algorithm doesn’t differentiate between credible journalism and fake news. From this perspective, stepping away feels like the right move to safeguard their reputation and focus on platforms that prioritize healthier, more constructive conversations. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙮𝙞𝙣𝙜: 𝙁𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙈𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙒𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣 🛡️ But not everyone agrees. Critics of the media exodus argue that abandoning X leaves a dangerous vacuum. By retreating, media outlets could unintentionally hand over the reins to misinformation and extremist voices. After all, X remains a powerful tool for public discourse. It’s where news breaks, where conversations happen in real time. By staying, media organizations can continue to share accurate information, challenge false narratives, and engage with audiences where they already are. So, What’s the Right Move? 🤷♂️ There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Some media outlets are adopting a hybrid approach: reducing their activity but maintaining a presence for critical updates. Others are exploring alternative platforms like Threads, Mastodon, or Substack to diversify their digital strategies. What’s clear is that the media landscape is shifting. This isn’t just about X; it’s about how we navigate an increasingly fragmented and polarized online world. 🌐 Over to you: If you were leading a media organization, would you stay on X and engage in the battle of narratives, or would you leave to protect your brand? Let’s discuss—drop your thoughts in the comments! 👇 #Media #SocialMedia #DigitalStrategy #Journalism #Marketing 💬

Last week, Instagram introduced a limit on political content for billions of users 🤯. You heard that right! Unless you've updated your settings, your feeds are now automatically being filtered 🤐 Creative Lead Zoë Jessica Dawson heard about this through a post from Misan Harriman and has written everything you need to know: 🧐 What's happened 🗳️ How it affects you 🤺 How to tackle this with creativity Read more below 👉 https://lnkd.in/eVPTJWqr

Bluesky seems to have absolutely taken off this week as a 'Twitter alternative', especially from a UK politics, journalism and academia perspective. Lots of accounts I followed in The Bad Place/X which had actively stopped posting there are taking up residence on Bluesky. It is also plugging the gap that Instagram's Threads platform is not providing, which still seems quite US-focused in its algorithm, doesn't facilitate following trending current content very easily, and has more of a lifestyle theme to its content than political or academic discourse. Having actively started using Bluesky this week myself, I find this piece by Gaby Hinsliff in the The Guardian (which incidentally announced this week it would no longer be posting its content on X) fascinating from a psychology perspective. The mass transition from X to Bluesky seems largely based on key influencers making the leap and then others who consider themselves part of that 'group' who share similar values also joining to maintain a sense of belonging and safety that they had lost on X. There is an instinctive group pushback to anyone seen to not be conforming to the 'rules' of Bluesky, and lots of insistence that everything is better and kinder on there, as if we can collectively will it to be the case. The segregation of social groups into separate spaces feels safer but is risky. Those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum for example, or even those with a moderate but clear political view, will rarely have their minds changed, even more so those down the conspiracy theory rabbithole. Being in an echo-chamber probably makes little difference to their views. The risk comes from the middle-ground - the 'undecided voters' who less strongly align themselves with a group identity and are less inclined to make the active decision to change to a platform filled with more progressive voices. They are left behind to consume whatever misinformation they are fed. With less balance in the content they are exposed to, their views become more skewed, until they end up identifying with the X-worldview. Of course the issue is that the platform is so engineered to promote extreme opinions that anyone wishing to stay to retain the balance won't be heard anyway. The problem now is the mainstream media coverage that those with extreme views enjoy - normally in the guise of 'balanced debate', legitimising those views and giving them equal weight, despite them often being held by a minority of people. More exposure means more undecideds swaying towards them. Bluesky might remain a civilised place to be, where people politely disagree on minor points but broadly agree with each other on key issues. It also might be overrun by trolls and bad actors infiltrating our safe space, and if that's not a metaphor for the real world in 2024 I don't know what is. https://lnkd.in/eNaN-aaX