Charities are falling out of love with X

Elon Musk’s transformation of Twitter into X has left many NGOs confused and dismayed. What was once a platform for sharing news and staying up-to-date with the sector has now become a site of hate speech and misinformation. Melissa Ezechukwu, a digital strategist and IBT trustee, writes about how X’s algorithm disadvantages NGOs trying to reach their audience.

For NGOs, social media has become an indispensable way of communicating their messages and mobilising their community. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are vital for amplifying campaigns, growing reach, and showcasing impact.

However, as NGOs increasingly rely on social media for communication, they face a challenging reality: what if these platforms and their algorithms no longer work in their favour? In light of recent changes to X, charities now find themselves questioning whether the platform still holds value for them.

Elon Musk made radical changes to the platform 

In October 2022, billionaire Elon Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter, with a supposed mission to convert the platform into a channel for unfettered free speech. He renamed the platform ‘X’ and implemented several controversial changes, including: 

• Locking verification and analytics behind a paywall
• Reducing content moderation
• Restoring accounts previously banned for hate speech and misinformation
• Altering the algorithm to seemingly favour right-wing and Musk-led content

This final point is one that has caused particular confusion and despair among those working in the charity sector.

X’s algorithm makes life difficult for charities

X’s algorithm is basically a system that recommends and curates content for users’ feeds, using machine learning based on user behaviour. The recommendation engine code is freely available online, so in theory anyone who understands code can dig into it and see exactly how it works.

Engagement, in the form of likes, retweets and replies, is the key to how tweets are ranked. The more engagement a tweet attracts, the more likely X is to surface that tweet to a wider audience. Tweets are also much more likely to get engagement if they contain multimedia content, such as images and video, and they also get a boost if they’re sent from a verified account.

This raises several challenges for NGOs. 

Firstly, it means that viral and attention-grabbing content is prioritised, making it difficult for smaller and more measured voices to be heard. Smaller NGOs for example often lack the resources to craft the type of content that appeases the algorithm, and so will likely find it harder to stand out on X.

Secondly, since verification has now moved from being a badge of authenticity to simply a paid feature, it means that anyone can have their messages amplified as long as they’re willing to pay. Again, this makes it an uphill battle for NGOs to stand out amongst the noise and counter the spread of misinformation.

Thirdly, tweets are likely to perform less well if they contain links to external sites. Basically, X doesn’t want you to leave the platform, so the algorithm will suppress the reach of tweets that have referral links. Again, this is problematic for NGOs who often want to link back to things like blog posts and campaigns on their website, where complex topics can be discussed in more detail.

NGOs have noticed a change in their feeds

Organisations I’ve spoken to have seen a notable decrease in their tweet impressions and share rates, an increase in bot followers, and a surge in misinformation – some amplified by X’s owner himself. Recently, a British MP raised alarm about Musk manipulating the X algorithm to further his own interests.

NGOs have also noticed that the ‘For you’ column has become more politicised, with recommendations not tailored to their interests. For example, they report seeing more far-right and Musk-led content (despite never interacting with his account), and little third sector content.

Scrolling through X while researching this article, I found myself despairing even more. Whether it was stumbling upon racist slurs under a Weetabix advert; finding multiple ads and unrelated memes junking up replies to any conversation, or reading the vile comments flooding any tweet written by a black female MP. 

All this means that NGOs are finding it increasingly difficult to be associated with a platform that is so highly politicised, and the risk of reputational damage that this can bring. Many report a marked decline in the user experience; that X now feels like someone else’s space, rather than a helpful resource.

Some charities are reluctant to leave the platform

Many NGOs have invested years in building large followings on Twitter/X, and are understandably reluctant to abandon these audiences. While some have left to explore alternatives like BlueSky or rekindle underused channels like LinkedIn, others have remained and stayed quiet, taking a ‘wait and see’ approach.

There’s an argument that NGOs should stay and fight: if X is indeed the ‘digital town square’ where everyone’s included, then surely it’s right that NGO voices remain there? The flaw with this argument is that the algorithm ensures it’s not a fair fight, because although it’s not restricting what can be said, it is controlling who sees what. Basically, it’s like a town square where certain people get to hold the mic more than others.

However, charities should not give up hope. Ayesha Aleem, Communications Manager at One World Media, argues that we should use the transformation of Twitter as a catalyst to explore alternative strategies to engage with audiences:

“As a comms manager looking at various social media channels, sometimes I do wonder if we might be at the cusp of ‘the death of social media’,” she said. “Our time and resources might be better invested in building more direct relationships with the charity’s stakeholders or building our own online networks instead of relying so heavily on digital platforms.”

The reality is that as long as NGOs rely on these platforms, they will always be subject to the whims of their billionaire owners and algorithms. By investing more in digital properties they can control – like websites and email – NGOs can create sustainable strategies and foster more personal and meaningful engagement with their audiences.

Melissa Ezechukwu is a digital strategist and consultant. She is also an IBT trustee.