Putting the X in Existential Crisis

X, or “X formerly known as Twitter” as it is commonly referred to in a clear indictment of its brand refresh, is currently in the eye of a political and media storm. The recent riots in the UK have once again spotlighted the issue of misinformation / disinformation and extremist content on the platform, leading to a conflagration online. While this is not a new phenomenon, the spread into the real world adds a new dimension.

With X owner Elon Musk not only refusing to take control of the situation in a responsible or meaningful way, but exacerbating tensions with his own commentary on the channel, businesses and brands are once again evaluating their future on the platform.

While some will be currently having discussions on whether to pause all advertisement on the platform, others will be questioning whether it is even suitable to maintain a presence anymore.

What you should do

The priority should be brand safety. With tensions heightened, review your plans for paid and organic activity.

If it is still important to maintain an ad presence, make sure your ads don’t appear next to any unsavoury posts via the account brand safety and suitability controls. This allows you to restrict ads in the “For You” feed by the following options: Standard, Limited (for brands with strict sensitivity thresholds) and IAS Pre-Bid*. A “relaxed” option is also coming soon which will show ads among some sensitive content in a bid to maximise reach.

This is particularly important considering the current state of the For You feed which has seen an increase in far right commentary, regardless of your political or cultural predilections and the people you follow on the app. While it is a standard feature of social media platforms to promote either users or content with high volumes of engagement, it presents significant issues with regard to both X’s algorithm and how the platform manages misinformation and potentially hateful content.

For organic content, avoid any posts which may unintentionally draw on recent events or appear unsympathetic to the current situation.

Should you leave?

No. If the roof is on fire you don’t respond by knocking down the walls. They took time to build. But also for these 4 reasons:

Audience targeting

The channel remains the most popular platform for MPs and journalists in the UK, with more than 91% of MPs in the new Parliament using the platform. While they remain active on the platform, it remains an effective tool for targeting these stakeholder audiences.

Follower base

Most businesses have spent years cultivating a dedicated follower base built up of policymakers, journalists, academics, business groups, consumers etc etc. To abandon this audience would be a misstep as there is no guarantee they will follow you elsewhere. 

Limited alternatives

LinkedIn aside (see below for more) none of the alternative platforms have yet achieved critical mass to be considered a viable alternative. Decentralised platforms like Mastodon and Bluesky have so far failed to deliver, while Threads’ growth has been slow.

Things can only could get better

Musk’s “advertiser boycott” lawsuit against Unilever, Mars et al is a sheer sign of desperation from a man that has seen his company’s revenue fall consistently since he’s been in charge. With reputational impact seen elsewhere, it’s not outside the realm of possibility he will be forced to sell in the not too distant future - if not due to ego alone.

Where else you can go

• LinkedIn – The safe space for corporate / public affairs campaigns. LinkedIn campaigns have proven an effective platform for engaging policymakers, with many organisations favouring a safer space for their campaigns. While traditionally featuring fewer MPs, with 366 MPs now on the platform (more than ever) we’re likely to see more activity and engagement from political leaders on the platform. 

• Threads – After a year of existence, Threads has still yet to come to the fore with its user base holding steady at 190 million. But Zuckerberg could be playing the long game, waiting patiently for X to implode. The future of Threads will depend on its introduction of its much-anticipated ads platform, with reports indicating testing is expected this year, and whether it is able to become the go-to online space for cultural commentary as Twitter did.

• Bluesky – Originally invite only, Bluesky shed its exclusive status earlier this year to grow its following. With a user count of 6 million as of July 2024, the move has so far proven to be of little impact, as it struggled to attract new users.

• Mastodon – Touted as the go-to platform in 2022 follower Musk’s takeover, the decentralised platform has failed to materialise as an alternative to X, in part due to its complicated structure.

What will the Government do?

3 years ago, as leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer called for tough sanctions against Telegram in a bid to “clean out the cesspit” of online extremism. With Telegram continuing to thrive as a channel for online extremism, clearly that has been unsuccessful. As Prime Minister, and with legal measures in the Online Safety Bill at his disposal, Starmer will have more powers to take action against X. But will he, and can they be effective?

An escalating publicity war with Musk is something a wise Government will want to try and avoid as there is little to be gained. Tech Minister Peter Kyle met with a representative from X this week, but while its owner runs riot, conversations with other X executives with little control over what Musk does or says are unlikely to lead to any significant breakthrough. Musk is “accountable to no one”, Kyle said.

The alternative then could be sanctions via the Online Safety Act (OSA), set to come into force this year. Will X be the first example of a firm facing penalties under the new legislation? The OSA will require tech firms to protect users from certain content, including that which incites violence, and is able to impose fines of “up to 10% of global annual turnover or £18 million, whichever is greater”. However, with firms given 3 months to assess illegal content on their platforms, the delay in any action is likely to be significant.

While the nuclear option would be to ban the platform entirely, the UK is unlikely to follow the likes of China, North Korea and Turkmenistan in doing so. 

*Shows ads in the Immersive Media Viewer alongside content deemed safe by Integral Ad Science across all 11 GARM suitability categories