A Strategic Question for Communicators and Campaigners
Communications INC has stepped back from posting on X because it does not reflect our values as a company. This is an ethical decision, and one which many organisations are currently pondering.
For campaigning organisations, especially those working at the intersection of ocean, climate and policy, it is not an easy decision to make.
X (formerly Twitter) has long functioned as a real-time arena for political discourse, diplomacy, campaigning and negotiation tracking. Governments, ministries, UN bodies, and NGOs built strategies around its immediacy. Campaigns have also traditionally used the platform to showcase their initiatives and garner support for their causes.
The landscape, however, has shifted.
Recent research published in Nature examined how X’s “For You” feed shapes political attitudes and behaviour. The study found that algorithm-selected content increased engagement and shifted views toward more conservative positions, with effects that persisted even after users switched back to a chronological feed.
For campaigning organisations, this highlights a wider issue. Platform design is not passive infrastructure. It shapes the information environment. For purpose-driven organisations, that reality inevitably factors into decisions about where and how to show up.
In our earlier reflection on Staying Visible: Ocean and Climate Communications in a Changing World, we explored how platform fragmentation, political pressure, and digital infrastructure disruption are reshaping the operating environment for ocean and climate communicators. That analysis emphasised the importance of visibility, adaptability and strategic clarity in uncertain times.
The question of whether to leave X sits within that wider context and ongoing shift.
For values-based organisations, this creates a genuine tension. Remaining present may feel misaligned. Leaving may feel like giving up a space where policy actors still convene and where influence, however imperfect, is still exercised.
That tension is real.
An Ethical Decision with Strategic Implications
For purpose-driven organisations, the decision to leave a platform associated with disinformation and toxicity may feel ethically clear. Practically, however, it can mean removing a campaigning tool from the toolbox.
For those who find the channel ethically unacceptable, this is our advice.
First of all, be clear about what role X plays for your organisation in order to fully understand the implications of withdrawing, recognising that in communications, even a light-touch presence can sometimes translate into subtle influence.
Where is your audience now?
Does the account still function as a listening tool or as a public record that journalists, partners, or policymakers refer to?
What happens to embedded posts if the account disappears?
Are there brand implications in losing control of the handle?
Does deleting the account permanently limit future flexibility?
These are not arguments to stay. They are prompts to encourage intentionality and strategic thinking.
There are Different Ways to Withdraw
You can deactivate temporarily, delete permanently, make the account private, or pause activity while keeping it visible.
Each pathway carries advantages, as well as trade-offs:
Deletion removes association, but also removes public and institutional content.
Privatisation reduces exposure, but hides content and may break embedded posts.
Pausing activity keeps the account visible and preserves the option to return, but maintains public association with the platform.
Values can be reflected in the decision to depart, as well as the way that departure is managed.
Presence vs Participation
Keeping an account visible may continue to signal association with the platform, even if no new content is published. That perception will vary by audience and context.
At the same time, retaining an account without updating it can preserve institutional history and maintain control of an established handle.
If an organisation chooses to step back without deleting the account, ambiguity can be reduced by clearly communicating presence rather than participation. Links to X can be removed from owned channels, email signatures, business cards and website footers, and reduced or paused activity can be communicated through a bio update or pinned post.
What We’re Doing
At Communications INC, we are retaining our account but will no longer post on it.
We believe the platform no longer aligns with our values. At the same time, we recognise that it remains part of the communications landscape in which governments, institutions and advocates operate.
This allows us to maintain access to conversations and keep our content visible to those who choose to be active on the platform, while giving us the flexibility to re-engage in the future if appropriate, and in the meantime, you can find us on LinkedIn, BlueSky, and Instagram, or get in touch via our website.
There Is No Single Right Answer
Different organisations will land in different places depending on their mission, audience, and priorities.
If you’re reconsidering your presence on X, we’re working with organisations to navigate these questions thoughtfully and strategically. Get in touch if you’d like to talk it through with us.