Why nonprofits are leaving X
- Danil
- Oct 2
- 3 min read
Updated: Oct 4
Twitter (and later X) has always been a questionable place for me. Too toxic, too shallow at times, too fleeting. And yet, it has proven to be effective.
That fragile balance of pros and cons, however, seems to have tipped for the nonprofit sector.
Too many things were done by the platform itself, and even more was said later by Musk.
Once a critical platform for nonprofits to engage with communities, advocate for change, and spread awareness, X is now facing a noticeable exodus from the sector. This shift is driven by changing dynamics, ethical concerns, and the reallocation of already scarce resources.
According to the 2024 Nonprofit Communications Trends Report by Nonprofit Marketing Guide LLC, the trend actually started before Elon Musk’s acquisition: nonprofits were already frustrated by its declining utility and alignment with their values. Musk’s ownership only accelerated the departure.
Why nonprofits are leaving X
By 2023, Twitter was already the platform nonprofits most wished they could drop. In 2024, many of them did just that. The main reasons:
Conflicts with values. Many nonprofits found the content amplified on X to be in direct conflict with their missions: hate speech, misinformation, harmful narratives.
Concerns about leadership. Musk’s comments and actions — from moderation policies to his treatment of journalists — pushed more organizations to reconsider their presence.
Uncertainty about fees and reliability. Potential fees for verification and shifting access rules made nonprofits, especially smaller ones, feel that the platform was no longer worth the investment.
Longstanding challenges. Even before Musk, Twitter was a tough space: low engagement, hard to break through the noise, less effective than alternatives.
What do the numbers say
The sector’s exodus is backed by clear data:
26% of nonprofits use X less frequently than before.
25% stopped posting but still keep their accounts.
8% deleted their accounts entirely.
15% rarely used the platform and still don’t.
Some organizations still find value, though. Advocacy groups and nonprofits focused on niche audiences (like journalists or policymakers) keep using X for targeted outreach. Larger comms teams also tend to stay. They simply have the bandwidth to manage multiple platforms.
Where are the resources going
Time, effort, and budgets previously spent on X are being redirected with Meta platforms as the clear winners. Nonprofits are reinvesting in:
Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Seen as more reliable and versatile for broader audiences. Of course, one could doubt if these platforms will avoid their own issues, especially once new EU targeting restrictions kick in. Will we end up buying banner ads on news sites again? 🙂
LinkedIn. A strong option for networking and thought leadership. Though, every time I open LinkedIn’s ad manager, I start questioning the meaning of life, UX design, and our KPIs.
This migration aligns with wider user trends: data shows X’s active user base is in decline for last couple of years, reinforcing nonprofits’ pivot elsewhere.
Wrapping up
The nonprofit sector’s relationship with X is a clear example of how external factors — leadership, ethics, user shifts — can force strategic decisions. X still holds value for some, but it’s no longer a cornerstone.
So, what does this report make me think about?
Adaptability is the holy grail. Especially if you’re a nonprofit or just a small org.
Platforms are both a must and a risk. You can’t fully leave it, but every switch means losing audience and reinvesting heavily to rebuild. And you never really own the contacts you build there.
That’s why you need your own channel. Email marketing is both a backup and a bridge. Export your list, move platforms, and keep your audience. Shut down X, open some Bluesky, and your email base helps you transition. It feels like in today’s age of bifurcations, email is one of the few islands of stability.
Comments