By John Q. Hosedrinker 
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, is closing its X account due to significantly declining user engagement and concerns regarding misinformation, negative discourse, and content moderation challenges. This decision, unanimously approved by city council, follows a staff recommendation highlighting Facebook’s superior performance as a communication tool. The city is exploring alternative platforms, such as Bluesky, and this action mirrors similar decisions by other public bodies and municipalities. The move is not solely attributed to Elon Musk’s ownership but rather the overall effectiveness and suitability of the platform for city communications.
Read the original article here
Newfoundland and Labrador’s capital city is closing its X account, and this decision reflects a growing trend amongst municipalities. It’s a move that has sparked considerable online debate, with some praising the city’s independence and others questioning the wisdom of abandoning such a widely used platform. The decision, however, appears to stem from a pragmatic assessment of X’s utility for municipal communication.
The city’s rationale focuses on the decreasing engagement with the platform. This decline suggests that X is no longer an effective tool for reaching the intended audience and engaging in constructive dialogue with residents. It’s a recognition that social media platforms are not inherently essential for effective government communication. Rather than forcing communication through a channel offering diminishing returns, the city is prioritizing other, possibly more effective, means.
The issue of misinformation is another key factor influencing the city’s decision. The challenges inherent in moderating content and combating the spread of false information on X are undeniable. The city’s assessment likely weighed the cost and effectiveness of managing misinformation on X against the benefits of maintaining a presence there, finding the latter insufficient to justify the former.
Negative discourse, or rather, the inability to control negative discourse, appears to be a significant concern. While open dialogue and feedback are important, the city’s assessment may have concluded that X’s environment fosters unproductive negativity rather than constructive criticism. The platform’s structure might not allow for effectively managing or filtering responses, leading to a net loss in terms of effective communication.
Content moderation policies, surprisingly, weren’t the primary issue. The city’s decision is not a rejection of content moderation per se. Rather, it suggests a lack of faith in X’s ability to moderate its platform effectively to the city’s needs, while simultaneously balancing free expression and avoiding the perception of censorship.
The city’s move is not an isolated incident. Nearby municipalities are now contemplating similar actions, suggesting a broader trend in how Canadian governments evaluate social media platforms for public communication. Many believe that there is potential for greater effectiveness by leveraging platforms with higher engagement and more robust moderation tools.
The alternative, as per the city’s reports, is Facebook, which has demonstrated greater success. This suggests a calculated strategy, prioritizing platforms that demonstrate a higher return on investment in terms of outreach and engagement with the intended audience, rather than a simple abandonment of social media altogether.
The discussions surrounding this decision highlight a fundamental question: is using X, or any social media platform, genuinely necessary for effective local government communication? The city’s choice reflects a view that perhaps it isn’t, and that there are more productive ways to connect with and inform residents.
The debate extends beyond mere pragmatism. The decision can be interpreted as a sign of local governments reclaiming control over their narrative. It underscores a sentiment that reliance on platforms controlled by private entities can create vulnerabilities, from issues like misinformation and negative discourse to potentially significant changes in platform policies, outside the control of the municipality.
While some critics highlight the loss of potential reach on X, others see the move as a bold step toward more direct and efficient communication methods, freeing resources and focus for other essential tasks. The focus should shift to implementing alternative, potentially more effective, communication strategies.
The situation also raises interesting questions regarding freedom of speech and access to information. Concerns have been voiced about the potential impact on citizens’ ability to access municipal information and engage with their local government. However, the city’s decision appears to prioritize finding alternative, more effective, avenues for communication rather than abandoning interaction altogether.
Ultimately, the closing of Newfoundland and Labrador’s capital city’s X account, and the subsequent considerations by nearby municipalities, highlight a significant shift in how governments approach social media. It reflects a growing awareness of the limitations of these platforms and a renewed focus on finding more effective, efficient, and controlled channels for communication with the public. It suggests a more thoughtful and proactive approach to managing online presence, prioritizing effectiveness over simply maintaining a presence.