Recent decisions made by major media outlets such as The Guardian, La Vanguardia and More specialized publications Like a sex tech guide To leave X Highlighting a new dilemma facing global media: should they stay on a popular platform that has become a major source of fake news and hate speech to maintain relevance, or should they leave to uphold ethical responsibilities?

Once the go-to place for global discourse, Company X’s moral decline gained momentum in the run-up to the 2024 US presidential election, as Musk made clear his political alignment with Donald Trump and his “Make America Great Again” movement, turning the platform into a megaphone for hate, racism, and xenophobia. .

As neo-Nazi and white nationalist accounts began to gain prominence, racist doxxing, doxxing and other abuse became a daily occurrence on the platform, and many media outlets — but also millions of regular users — made the decision to leave X for good. For them, leaving X clearly represented a moral stand against racism and hate, misappropriating a platform that was once widely accepted as a global public square. But is the transition of media organizations to alternatives, such as Bluesky, a real solution, or does it risk creating new problems, such as ideological bubbles, financial losses, and diminished influence?

For many, staying on X seems like tacit approval of the direction the platform has taken under Musk. For some media outlets, especially those whose corporate identity with progressive values ​​prides itself on its journalistic ethics, a perceived association with the controversy-filled platform of Trump’s far-right alternative is clearly unacceptable. However, X’s vast audience – still unmatched by any other similar social media platform – remains an undeniable asset. The platform’s global reach and ability to amplify messages cannot be ignored. Leaving it entirely would mean cutting ties with a huge global audience that still relies on the platform for news, potentially leaving a void that could happily be filled by less credible voices — or fake news machines outright.

For those ports escaping X, Bluesky has emerged as an attractive alternative. It is a decentralized platform, providing an environment where hate speech and misinformation are less spread. Its structure promises a healthier and more values-compatible discourse. Bluesky’s goal is not to be free of misinformation, hate speech, and fake news, but that its work naturally reduces the reach of this content rather than promotes it — and that it provides additional tools for users to better control information and content. They consume.

But Bluesky is not without flaws. Its user base is much smaller and its geographic reach is more moderate than X. At the same time, its design, Critics say, Risks creating ideological echo chambers: If Bluesky becomes a refuge primarily for liberal-leaning users and journalists, it may as well Sustain Critics say the same siled dynamics plague other alternative platforms.

However, this argument collapses when one looks at the alternative that S offers to Plosky’s supposed ideological bubbles: social media that is open to all ideologies, but driven by hate. As a journalist and professor Marcelo Soares books“X” isn’t a public square, it’s a mall. There are no discussions in the mall. Unlike X, which thrives on conflict to drive engagement, Bluesky lets users control their experience, choosing what goes on in their own feeds without algorithmic manipulation.

If someone chooses a bubble, it is a personal choice, not a structural imposition. Meanwhile, the so-called X variant of bubbles replaces contact with hostility, turning the platform into a battlefield rather than a space for dialogue.

There are other arguments against a mass media move from X to Bluesky. As journalist Sophia Smith Galler He was noticed on LinkedInBluesky is a platform designed to meet the needs of journalists, not their audiences. It recalls an earlier era when journalists dominated the Twitter ecosystem, interacting primarily with each other. This dynamic, while comforting for those working in media, may not translate into meaningful audience engagement in a world where users are turning to video-based platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. So opening an account on Bluesky, where they can interact with like-minded colleagues directly, without facing a lot of abuse from neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists, will undoubtedly be a positive thing for journalists. However, does it offer a clear alternative to X for organizations that want and need to share their content with broader, more diverse audiences? Unfortunately, Company

Leaving X also has practical and financial implications for media organizations. Musk’s platform remains a major source of ad revenue. X’s broad reach and user base makes it an important platform for driving traffic to news sites and attracting advertisers. Abandoning them 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 opportunities make them less viable for organizations that rely on volume to maintain their operations. The media must navigate this trade-off carefully: prioritizing ethics while finding ways to maintain financial viability.

Fortunately for the cash-poor ethics media – and humanity as a whole – Musk’s behavior on X, and on the global political stage, is driving a lot of people away from One day, this new platform may become as profitable and useful as X for media organizations. Once the deportation from

Exodus from X represents more than just a shift in social media strategy – it is a reflection of the broader challenges facing journalism in the digital age. As media outlets grapple with the ethical consequences of remaining on problematic platforms, they must also contend with changing audience behaviors, financial pressures, and the rise of content-driven ecosystems.

While platforms like Bluesky offer a glimmer of hope, they are not the answer to all the many issues facing journalism today. The way forward requires a delicate balance: embracing innovation without sacrificing the core values ​​of journalism; And commit to less toxic social networks, but without abandoning the audience.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.