Why I’m staying on Twitter/X

If you are active on Twitter (or X, as it has been called since July 2023), you will probably have noticed the recent exodus from the site. This reflects unhappiness with Elon Musk and his influence on the US election. Certainly, I understand these concerns. Not only am I very worried about the second Trump administration, particularly its implications for European security, but Musk’s role in the election was baleful; he threw the weight of X behind Trump’s campaign, compromising the site’s independence. Moreover, I dislike the extreme (political and sexual) material which has a greater presence on the site.

Following these developments, some have argued that critics of Musk should leave. In a piece which addresses academics, the Manchester academic Mark Carrigan makes this argument,

‘Imagine discovering that a colleague was regularly posting on Gab, Parler or Truth Social… It would likely be a surprise if you discovered a colleague was a regular user of these platforms. Even if they held strident conservative views, the widespread image of these platforms as unregulated forums in which hate speech thrives would likely pose questions about the judgement of the colleague and the nature of their views.

Now imagine that this colleague saw themselves as holding progressive views, even defining themselves as virulently in opposition to the belief systems around which these platforms have germinated. In this case, surprise would likely give way to bewilderment. Why would they choose to spend their time on this platform?’

Such ideological ‘takeovers’ are not a new phenomenon and, in the last decade, radical challengers have gained control of several august institutions. Given my interests, I think of the British Labour Party; from 2015-19, the radical Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the party and many moderates made similar arguments to Carrigan and left. During this period, I spent much time thinking about these issues and eventually quit the party. However, I was seldom active and, in hindsight, am not convinced this was the right decision.

The case of Labour is different from X, yet the similarities and manner in which Corbynism ended – moderates regained control of the party, purged the Corbynites and won a landslide victory in the 2024 election – provide an opportunity for reflection.

In both cases, one reflects on the extent to which participation is compromising. In the case of the Labour Party, this was complicated. Though figures such as Keir Starmer became far too involved in the Corbyn project – as I have long argued, this makes Starmer an unsuitable leader of the Labour Party – the stances of others were more defensible. Rachel Reeves, the current Chancellor, wanted nothing to do with Corbyn and remained on the backbenches (though twice campaigned for Corbyn to be prime minister). Asserting that regular Labour Party members were compromised is even more difficult; as an institution, the Labour Party had a long pre-Corbyn history and, arguably, subsequent events vindicated those who stayed.

To what extent is one compromised by the use of X? In the case of individual users, the answer seems more akin to the case of the Labour member (i.e. not much). And there are key differences between the Labour Party and X. In the former case, membership implies broad endorsement of the party’s values. In the latter case, one is signing up to be part of a platform; such a commitment is much looser.

Admittedly, X has more viable alternatives than the Labour Party; critics of Musk may sign up to platforms such as Bluesky and Mastodon and, later in his article, Carrigan makes this point. I have joined Bluesky and am happy to see it grow; there is room for more than one platform.

But as Labour Party members said under Corbyn, there is a case for staying and countering the leadership. Long before the Musk takeover, X hosted large and politically diverse communities and, independently of Musk, such networks have a claim to the space. As with Corbyn, Musk’s hegemony may one day end.

Left-liberals should be wary of own goals. Thus far, I have mainly seen evidence of left-liberals quitting X. Yet the platform has a much wider basis. Aside from the other political communities who do not seem to be leaving, celebrities and sportspeople have large presences and most of their followers remain engaged. Many of these people do not think ideologically and, if they log on to see Cristiano Ronaldo or Britney Spears but encounter occasional political content, left-liberals must reflect on whether they would prefer to shape that content or leave it to Musk.

Just today, we learned that Kamala Harris rejected a Joe Rogan interview for fear of progressive backlash. This was a big mistake and, in the context of a popular culture which is being infiltrated by the radical right, left-liberals must avoid such errors.  

Of course, my calculations may change. Beyond the Labour Party, I have a similar dilemma with the University and College Union (UCU), an institution which also has a problem with extremism but of which I remain a member. I have long reflected on my red lines – one must have these – and have resolved that, should there come a day when almost no one with whom I sympathize remains a member, I will quit the union. Happily, this is far from the case; the union’s membership is diverse and even some activists are moderates.

For now, X is similar; I will remain active on the platform.

---

If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊