Significant global events often trigger users to flee mainstream social media platforms, particularly X (formerly Twitter), due to perceived ideological biases. While alternatives like BlueSky and Threads emerge, leaving X can hinder democratic discourse by isolating individuals within echo chambers. Engaging with diverse viewpoints is essential for societal progress, as withdrawal from popular platforms limits the exchange of ideas and stifles meaningful discussions. Ultimately, maintaining connections on established platforms is crucial for fostering a cohesive society.
Whenever significant events unfold worldwide, we often witness a notable shift away from mainstream social media platforms. Throughout my two-decade journey on the internet, I have seen numerous such migrations. The most notable ones occurred with Facebook and Instagram, typically triggered by controversies surrounding Mark Zuckerberg. However, history has shown us that these mass departures are often fleeting.
Many who left ended up abandoning social media altogether, revealing a deeper, understandable desire for change. In most cases, however, users returned to their original platforms, primarily because the alternatives that emerged during these exoduses failed to gain traction. Historically, successful social networks have thrived by creating innovative uses that quickly captivated large audiences. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok have not served as permanent refuges for those disillusioned.
The Dilemma of Leaving X: Is It Really the Solution?
In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidency, some viewed Elon Musk as instrumental in the Republican’s resurgence. Indeed, X, formerly known as Twitter, has been a significant platform for his candidacy. Musk has faced accusations, backed by substantial evidence, of manipulating his social network to amplify pro-Trump rhetoric and promote his various ventures, even those with extreme views. Consequently, many have declared their intent to abandon X due to its perceived support for divisive ideologies, which is entirely justifiable.
This leads us to a familiar pattern where emerging platforms boast about their growing communities. Previously, it was Mastodon; in the U.S., Threads gained traction; and now, BlueSky is in the spotlight.
However, I firmly believe that leaving X is a misguided choice.
First and foremost, withdrawing from a platform because it doesn’t align with your views can have detrimental effects on democracy.
We have often criticized platforms like Truth Social or Parler for fostering reactionary and conspiratorial enclaves when Twitter was labeled “too left.” Should we take pride in transforming BlueSky into a self-proclaimed progressive refuge that “deserves” our perspectives? The danger lies in constructing walls, even if virtual, that become increasingly difficult to breach.
If reputable media outlets such as The Guardian or Ouest France exit X, or if progressive figures choose to leave, they are effectively confining their discourse to a limited circle of like-minded individuals. This approach stifles the exchange of ideas, deprives debates of necessary contradictions, and curtails the opportunity to compromise with differing viewpoints. Furthermore, the media’s decision to withdraw means they are not contributing quality information to a major platform.
While accurate statistics are hard to come by, Social Room estimates that X has around 17 million users in France, a number that mirrors the global user base of BlueSky. This highlights the significant audience left behind, a group that may remain unheard during elections, leading to reactions of “who would have thought,” while their voices echo in the void of a one-dimensional, aggressive, and simplistic discourse.
Preserving Connections: The Importance of Staying Engaged
Choosing to leave X also means missing out on discussions that matter in France. Trends and topics of national relevance often surface on a platform populated by millions. Whether it’s commenting on a popular show, a sports event, current politics, or social issues, X still offers a glimpse into the country’s reality, one that media outlets should not overlook. Its motto, “What is happening,” remains impactful in 2024.
Admittedly, I recognize that X is not an enjoyable experience. Lucie Ronfaut, who authors our #Règle30 newsletter, rightly advocates for the right to disconnect from online chaos. Yet X fundamentally reflects real life: kindness and respect are not always the prevailing values – something I, as a cyclist in Paris, know all too well.
At times, we long for a more harmonious online environment, free from the aggression often faced in reality. We could opt for alternative platforms that resonate more with our ideals and engage in smaller communities that share our beliefs. While this may feel comforting and is a common practice, it does not foster a cohesive society. If finding approval for our opinions or sharing passions becomes a prerequisite for interaction, we risk a disconnect from broader communication. In the end, it is crucial to remain the voice of reason, advocating for a grounded approach that embraces nuance rather than retreating to echo chambers.
True societal progress cannot occur in isolated thought bubbles. Without cross-pollination of ideas, groups may become stagnant and susceptible to radicalization. The mass migration of the American alt-right to Truth and Parler post-Biden’s election serves as a cautionary tale of the walls we construct that do not contribute to improving societal attitudes.
Ultimately, creating barriers leads to dead ends. Instead, we should view our comfort on alternative social media as a bridge that we must not burn upon crossing.