In a move that has raised more eyebrows than support, The Guardian has announced a boycott of the online ‘public square’ X, formerly known as Twitter. Citing concerns over “often disturbing content” such as “far-right conspiracy theories and racism,” the British newspaper declared its departure—ironically, through a statement posted on X itself.
The timing of this decision is as questionable as the reasoning behind it. The Guardian claims that the recent U.S. presidential election, which saw Donald Trump re-elected, “served only to underline” its view that X is a “toxic media platform.” Owner Elon Musk stands accused of using the platform’s influence to “shape political discourse,” particularly by supporting Trump.
Elon Musk, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” purchased X for a staggering $44 billion in 2022. Since then, he has been both vilified and lauded for his approach to content moderation. The Guardian takes issue with Musk reinstating the accounts of controversial figures like Andrew Tate, Tommy Robinson, and Alex Jones. Yet, they seem to overlook the fact that open discourse includes voices they might not agree with.
What’s more perplexing is that while The Guardian is pulling the plug on its official accounts—which boast over 27 million followers across more than 80 accounts—it is not restricting its reporters from using the platform. Nor is it preventing X users from sharing Guardian articles. In the paper’s own words,
X users will still be able to share our articles, and the nature of live news reporting means we will still occasionally embed content from X within our article pages.
So, is this a boycott or a publicity stunt?
The Guardian asserts that “the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives” and that resources could be “better used promoting our journalism elsewhere.” Yet, just hours before archiving their accounts, they were still actively posting content. The sudden moral high ground seems less about principles and more about performative activism.
Their statement continues to lament that “X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work.” If that’s the case, why the need for a grand announcement? If the platform is as irrelevant as they suggest, wouldn’t a quiet departure suffice? Moreover, their decision to allow reporters to continue using X for “news-gathering purposes” undermines the very stance they’re taking. It appears they want to have their cake and eat it too.
The Guardian isn’t alone in this theatrical exit; such entities as the Berlin Film Festival, the North Wales Police force, Whispering Bob Harris, and even Clifton Suspension Bridge have also quit X recently. But one has to wonder if they are genuinely concerned about the platform’s content or if they’re jumping on a bandwagon for attention.
The backdrop to this flouncing off is Musk’s evolving relationship with Donald Trump. Now, with Trump announcing that Musk will be part of his new administration, The Guardian seems to be using this as fodder to justify its exit. But again, the question arises: is leaving X the solution? Or is it merely a hollow gesture that allows the departee to claim the moral high ground without making any real sacrifice?
In the end, The Guardian‘s boycott of X comes across as inconsistent and performative. Decrying the platform’s toxicity, the paper still relies on it as a journalistic source and to allow its content to be circulated. If it truly believed in its stance, a complete severance would be more convincing. Until then, The Guardian‘s departure feels less like a stand against misinformation and more like a misinformed stand.
