Is It Ethical to Continue Using “X”?
The Progressive Case for Leaving — or Staying

New York, N.Y. — When Elon Musk rebranded Twitter as “X” in 2023, the shift seemed symbolic of more than just a name change. It marked a dramatic transformation in how the platform operates — from its content moderation policies to its role in public discourse.

Since then, the site has become a breeding ground for misinformation, hate speech, and unchecked extremism. For many progressives, this raises an uncomfortable question: is it still ethical to stay on “X”?

The Platform’s Transformation

Under Musk’s leadership, “X” has undergone sweeping changes. He slashed content moderation teams, reinstated previously banned accounts (including those of far-right figures), and loosened restrictions on what can be posted. Verified users — now anyone willing to pay for the blue check — often receive priority visibility, regardless of the content’s accuracy or intent.

The result? A platform where misinformation flourishes and engagement rewards the most inflammatory voices. Studies have shown a spike in hate speech and conspiracy theories since Musk’s takeover, leaving users to navigate a minefield of harmful content.

For progressives who once saw Twitter as a tool for activism, community-building, and holding power to account, “X” now represents a moral quandary: does continuing to use the platform enable its worst tendencies?

The Ethical Dilemma

On one hand, staying on “X” allows progressive voices to push back against harmful narratives. Grassroots activists, journalists, and everyday users can still reach broad audiences, challenge misinformation, and promote progressive causes. Abandoning the platform entirely could mean ceding that space to bad actors — leaving it as an unchecked echo chamber for extremism.

Some argue that boycotting “X” sends a clearer, more powerful message. High-profile users, like author Stephen King and actor Jack Black, have criticized Musk’s changes and signaled their unwillingness to engage with the platform. Others have followed suit, migrating to alternatives like Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads.

The key ethical question boils down to this: does staying on “X” make you complicit in its harmful practices, or does it empower you to fight back from within?

Who Profits from Your Presence?

A crucial factor in this debate is the financial side of “X.” Musk has shifted the platform’s revenue model to rely more heavily on subscriptions and advertising. Users who stay — particularly those who engage frequently or pay for verification — contribute to the platform’s profitability and credibility, even unintentionally.

The more engagement “X” attracts, the more appealing it becomes to advertisers and investors. This creates an uncomfortable reality for those who oppose Musk’s vision: their presence fuels the very system they oppose.

However, some argue that quitting entirely isn’t the only ethical response. Many users now treat “X” less as a social platform and more as a battleground — amplifying progressive voices while refusing to give Musk a dime. They advocate using the platform without contributing to its financial success, such as avoiding paid features and reporting harmful content.

Alternatives on the Rise

For those considering leaving “X,” a growing number of alternative platforms offer refuge. Mastodon, a decentralized platform, has attracted users seeking a more community-driven experience. Bluesky — initially funded by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey — has gained traction as an invite-only, more open version of the original Twitter experience. Meta’s Threads, though tied to Instagram, offers a familiar microblogging feel with stricter content moderation.

Still, none have yet reached the scale and influence of “X.” For many of us progressives, the reality is that “X” remains the place where public conversations happen — from breaking news to political organizing. The ethical conflict remains: is visibility worth the cost?

The Personal Choice

Ultimately, the decision to stay or leave “X” is a deeply personal one. For progressives, the answer hinges on balancing impact with integrity:

. •    Staying may help counter harmful content and keep progressive ideas visible, but it indirectly supports Musk’s platform.
    •    Leaving sends a clear ethical statement and denies “X” user engagement — but risks losing an influential public space.

Perhaps the real ethical challenge isn’t whether to stay or go, but how to ensure whatever choice you make supports progressive values in the long run. Whether that means fighting from within or building better spaces elsewhere, the goal remains the same: to create a digital world that amplifies truth, compassion, and justice — not hate.

So, the question remains: is it time to walk away from “X”? Or can we progressives still reclaim the platform from the inside?

“X” Marks the Ethical Dilemma: Should We Still Use Musk’s Platform? (March 15, 2025)

#Ethics #SocialMedia #ElonMusk #Twitter #X #TechEthics #DigitalResponsibility #BoycottX #SocialMediaReform

Tags: Elon Musk, Twitter, X, social media, ethics, technology, online platforms, digital responsibility, tech industry, free speech, misinformation