Charities and social media: stay, leave, or hedge?
Almost three in ten charities have quit X (formerly Twitter), and platform instability is forcing organisations to reconsider where they invest their digital presence. The question is whether charities can afford to be on platforms run by controversial figures -- and whether they can afford not to be.
The debate in brief
For more than a decade, Twitter was the charity sector's default public square. Organisations used it for campaigning, crisis communications, fundraising, and influencing policy. When Elon Musk acquired the platform in October 2022 and rebranded it as X, charities faced a question they had never seriously considered: should they remain on a platform whose owner's public statements and policy positions were increasingly at odds with their values?
By early 2026, the Charity Digital Skills Report found that 50% of charities had left X entirely, with a further significant proportion reducing their activity. Some moved to Bluesky, Threads, or LinkedIn. Others consolidated around Instagram or invested in email and owned channels. But the debate goes beyond one platform. The broader question is whether charities should build their communications on infrastructure they do not control, owned by individuals or corporations whose behaviour they cannot predict.
The stakes are real. For charities working on migration, equalities, or climate, being present on a platform where misinformation and hostility toward their causes are algorithmically amplified is not just a brand risk -- it exposes staff and beneficiaries to harm. But for charities that rely on reaching the public where they already are, abandoning a platform with tens of millions of UK users means accepting reduced visibility.
Quick takeaways
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| How many charities have left X? | Around 50% have quit entirely, with a significant further proportion reducing their activity (Charity Digital Skills Report 2025). |
| Why are charities leaving? | Content moderation failures, the platform owner's political positions, algorithmic changes reducing organic reach, brand safety concerns, and staff wellbeing. |
| Where are they going? | LinkedIn, Bluesky, Threads, and Instagram are the most common alternatives, alongside greater investment in email newsletters and owned websites. |
| Should all charities leave X? | Not necessarily. The decision depends on where a charity's audiences are, the nature of its work, and its tolerance for association with the platform's direction. There is no one-size-fits-all answer. |
| What is platform risk? | The danger of building communications capacity on infrastructure you do not control, where changes in ownership, algorithms, or policy can destroy years of investment overnight. |
The arguments
The case for leaving
The changes at X since Musk's acquisition have been well documented. Content moderation teams were reduced by an estimated 80%. The platform reinstated previously banned accounts, including those suspended for hate speech and misinformation. Changes to the verification system, the algorithmic prioritisation of paid subscribers, and the introduction of revenue sharing for engagement-driven content all shifted the platform's character.
For charities, the consequences are specific. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate documented a significant increase in hate speech on the platform following the ownership change, with particular spikes around migration, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial justice -- areas where many charities operate. Staff managing charity social media accounts report increased abuse and burnout. Charity sector communications professionals have widely reported that managing X has become more difficult and less productive since the ownership change.
The values argument is straightforward: if a charity exists to advance equality, justice, or human rights, maintaining a prominent presence on a platform whose owner publicly opposes those values sends a contradictory signal. Several high-profile organisations, including the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the Fawcett Society, made public departures from X, citing irreconcilable tensions between their missions and the platform's direction.
The practical argument reinforces the ethical one. Organic reach on X has declined sharply, with charity posts reaching a fraction of the audience they did pre-acquisition. If the platform is no longer effective for reaching people and is actively hostile to a charity's mission, the case for staying is weak.
The case for staying
Reach matters, and X still has it. Ofcom's Online Nation 2024 report found that 22.1 million UK adults used X at least monthly (as of May 2024), representing a significant decline from 24 million in May 2023. For charities that need to influence public debate, reach journalists, or engage with policymakers -- many of whom remain active on the platform -- abandoning X means abandoning access.
The pragmatic argument is that charities do not endorse a platform by using it, any more than they endorse a broadcasting company by appearing on television. Social media is infrastructure for reaching people, and the ethical character of the platform's owner is distinct from the charity's own communications. Leaving X as a protest action may feel principled, but it is invisible to the vast majority of users and achieves nothing measurable.
There is also a concern about ceding space. When charities leave platforms where misinformation about their causes is prevalent, they remove authoritative voices from the conversation. Migration charities that quit X leave the public debate about asylum to voices that go unchallenged. Health charities that leave remove a counterweight to medical misinformation. The argument is not that being present is pleasant, but that absence has consequences for the people charities serve.
Smaller charities face an additional consideration: they may lack the resource to maintain presence on multiple platforms. If they leave X, they may not have the capacity to build audiences elsewhere. For a local advice centre with 2,000 followers built over a decade, starting from zero on Bluesky is a significant cost.
The diversification approach
The most common strategic response has been to reduce dependence on any single platform rather than making a binary stay-or-leave decision. The Charity Digital Skills Report found that charities active on social media used an average of 3.4 platforms in 2025, up from 2.7 in 2023. Investment in email newsletters has increased sharply, with multiple sector surveys recording significant growth in charity email volumes as organisations shift toward channels they control.
This approach acknowledges that platform risk is not unique to X. Meta has repeatedly changed algorithms in ways that devastated charity page reach. TikTok faces ongoing regulatory uncertainty. LinkedIn's shift toward personal brand content has made it harder for organisational accounts to gain traction. The lesson of the X exodus is not that one platform is bad -- it is that dependence on any platform you do not control is inherently risky.
Owned channels -- websites, email lists, and direct relationships -- are the only communications infrastructure a charity fully controls. The diversification argument is ultimately an argument for investing in those channels first, treating social media as a distribution mechanism rather than a foundation.
The evidence
The Charity Digital Skills Report 2025 provides the most comprehensive sector-wide data. The finding that 50% of charities had left X represents a significant shift in under three years. Larger charities (income over 1 million) were more likely to remain, reflecting their greater investment in existing audiences and their use of X for media relations and policy engagement.
Ofcom's Online Nation 2024 report provides the most recent platform landscape data. X's UK user base declined from an estimated 24 million monthly active users in May 2023 to 22.1 million by May 2024. In the same period, LinkedIn's UK membership grew to around 45 million registered accounts, and Bluesky's UK user base remained comparatively small but was growing rapidly -- a fraction of what organisations had built on X over a decade.
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate's research documented the content moderation changes in detail. Their analysis found that hate speech on X increased significantly following the acquisition -- with some specific metrics, such as the use of racial slurs, showing increases of around 200% -- and that content reported by users was significantly less likely to be actioned under the new ownership.
The shift in charity communications is borne out by broader email marketing data: nonprofit email open rates have been rising while social platform engagement has weakened, supporting the move toward owned channels.
Current context
The debate intensified in late 2025 and early 2026 following Musk's increasingly prominent role in US politics and his public interventions on issues including immigration, DEI, and international aid. For UK charities working in these areas, the association became harder to manage. The backlash was not limited to charities: several UK public bodies and local authorities also paused or reduced their X activity.
The Charity Commission has not issued guidance on platform choice, treating it as an operational decision for individual charities. However, the Commission's 2025 guidance on charity communications did emphasise that trustees are responsible for ensuring communications do not inadvertently damage the charity's reputation -- a principle some organisations have applied to their platform decisions.
The emergence of viable alternatives has made leaving X less costly than it would have been in 2023. Bluesky, in particular, has attracted a disproportionate share of charity sector accounts, with sector trackers recording around 500 active UK charities posting on Bluesky by mid-2025, a figure that has continued to grow. However, audience sizes remain a fraction of what organisations built on X over a decade.
The broader regulatory environment is also shifting. The Online Safety Act, which came into full force in 2025, imposes duties on platforms to protect users from illegal content and content harmful to children. Ofcom's enforcement of these duties may reshape the platform landscape further, potentially improving the environment on X or driving users to platforms with stronger compliance records.
Last updated: April 2026
What this means for charities
The X question is really a platform strategy question. Charities should be making deliberate, documented decisions about which platforms they use and why, rather than drifting along with historical choices. That decision should weigh audience reach, brand safety, staff wellbeing, mission alignment, and the cost of maintaining each channel.
Any charity that has not conducted a platform audit in the past 18 months should do so. The audit should answer: where are our audiences, what are we trying to achieve on each platform, what are the risks, and what would we lose by leaving? For many charities, the honest answer will be that X delivers diminishing returns at increasing reputational and human cost.
Investment in owned channels should be a strategic priority regardless of platform decisions. Email lists, website content, and direct referral relationships are assets a charity controls. Social media platforms are rented space. Building a communications strategy around rented space is a risk that the sector has been slow to recognise.
For charities that choose to stay on X, the decision should be active and reviewed regularly. Staying by default -- because no one has made the decision to leave -- is not a strategy. Trustees should understand where the charity has a presence and be satisfied that the risks are being managed.
Common questions
Is leaving X actually effective as a protest?
As a protest action aimed at changing the platform, almost certainly not. Individual charity departures are invisible at the scale X operates. But that framing misunderstands why most charities leave. The primary motivations are brand safety, staff wellbeing, declining effectiveness, and values alignment -- not an expectation that leaving will change the platform's direction.
Can charities build audiences on new platforms quickly?
It depends on the platform and the charity's existing audience. Bluesky has seen rapid adoption in the charity sector, but audience sizes are typically 10-20% of what organisations had on X. LinkedIn offers large potential reach but favours individual voices over organisational accounts. The honest answer is that rebuilding takes years, and reach will be reduced in the short to medium term.
Should charities be on TikTok?
TikTok offers significant reach, particularly with younger audiences, and some charities -- notably Cancer Research UK and Mind -- have built substantial followings. However, the platform faces ongoing regulatory scrutiny, with the possibility of restrictions or a ban in the UK following the US precedent. Charities considering TikTok should weigh the audience opportunity against the platform risk and invest accordingly.
What about Meta platforms -- Facebook and Instagram?
Meta platforms remain the most widely used by UK charities. The Charity Digital Skills Report found that 82% of charities maintained a Facebook presence and 67% used Instagram. However, organic reach on Facebook has declined steadily for years, and Meta's algorithmic changes have historically deprioritised charity content. Instagram remains effective for visual storytelling but is increasingly pay-to-play for reach.
How should charities handle staff abuse on social media?
This is a serious and growing problem. Abuse and harassment directed at staff managing charity social media accounts is a documented and growing concern. Charities should have clear protocols for handling abuse, including moderation policies, escalation procedures, and support for affected staff. No communications objective is worth sustained harm to employees.
Do trustees need to approve platform decisions?
Not individual platform choices, but trustees should understand the charity's overall communications strategy and the risks associated with it. The Charity Commission's guidance on communications makes clear that trustees are responsible for the charity's reputation. Where a platform decision involves significant reputational risk -- as the X question does for many charities -- it is appropriate for the board to be involved.
Key sources and further reading
Charity Digital Skills Report 2025 -- Charity Digital/Skills Platform. The primary source for sector-wide data on platform use, with detailed findings on X departures, alternative platform adoption, and the shift toward owned channels.
Online Nation 2024 -- Ofcom. The UK communications regulator's annual report on online media use, providing the most authoritative data on platform audience sizes, demographics, and trends.
CharityComms research and salary surveys -- CharityComms. Ongoing research covering communications professionals' roles, staff wellbeing, and platform use, including findings on social media pressures and digital channel strategy.
Centre for Countering Digital Hate -- X/Twitter research -- CCDH, 2023-2025. Ongoing analysis of content moderation changes and hate speech trends on X following the Musk acquisition, providing the evidence base for brand safety concerns.
Charity Commission guidance on charity communications -- Charity Commission for England and Wales, 2025. The regulatory framework for charity communications decisions, including the trustee responsibilities relevant to platform choices.
Online Safety Act enforcement updates -- Ofcom, 2025-2026. The regulatory context for platform standards in the UK, including Ofcom's emerging enforcement approach and its implications for platform compliance and user safety.