X – To leave or to stay? 

Many communication professionals are facing a difficult dilemma: how to assess the accountability of the social media platforms their organization or clients are using. As stakeholders are fragmenting across different channels, it has become increasingly challenging to be active on social media. Decisions must be made – but based on what criteria? While some stakeholders leave certain platforms, others remain seemingly unaffected by the controversy.

ProCom – The Finnish Association of Communication Professionals recently surveyed its members to examine the perspectives of leading communication professionals on social media platform responsibility. The results came as no surprise: LinkedIn is seen as the most responsible platform, while X ranks as the least. A striking 90% of leading communication professionals plan to either scale back or completely stop using X. After LinkedIn, respondents viewed Bluesky as the next most responsible platform, though its reach so far remains limited.

Many organizations are now looking for an impartial, well-reasoned perspective on their future social media strategy. The decision often hinges on where the organization’s key stakeholders – typically customers or decision-makers such as politicians and officials – are most active. The common belief is that the organization must maintain a presence wherever its most important stakeholders are. 

Above all, it is essential to ensure that critical information reaches stakeholders at the right time and in the right format. This is particularly crucial for public-sector organizations, where the primary audience often includes citizens or residents or other service users. 

Social media platforms need to be evaluated and recommended by the comms pro 

Mis- and disinformation, harmful algorithm-driven content, or the misuse of a platform for spying purposes are serious warning signs. These concerns make it vital to critically reassess platform choices. 

The Council of Ethics for Communication (VEN) has been asked to provide guidance on how organizations should navigate the ethical responsibility—or irresponsibility—of the social media platforms they use. According to the Code of Ethics for Professional Communicators, professionals in the field are expected to promote a culture of openness while also reinforcing the credibility of their employer or client. Additionally, they play a crucial role in recognizing and addressing potential communication risks. 

The guidelines provide a clear framework for addressing the issue of social media platform responsibility. Communication professionals must be the ones who are able to evaluate the topic through the lens of ethical and responsible communication. They must also have the courage to advise and make decisions about the values they want their employer or client to represent – or the reasoning behind an organization’s choice to remain on a given platform. 

The role of ethical reflection in communication will become even more significant in the years ahead. The discussion culture we accept on the social media platforms we use not only reflects but can also be perceived as representing the values of both the organization and the communication professional. 

Assessing the ethics of social media platforms requires both the courage to make fact-based decisions and the resources to monitor discussions, moderate content, and verify information accuracy. At the same time, authorities and public institutions must ensure that stakeholders have access to the information they need. 

Moving to a more responsible platform doesn’t have to be an abrupt shift: it can and should be a gradual process. Now is the time for organizations to map out their path toward more ethical platforms. 

It’s important to track audience engagement and responses. The shift of an organization’s key stakeholders to new social media platforms takes time, but most will follow. Especially when communication consistently reinforces the organization’s new platform strategy and the specific channels where interaction will take place. 

Taru Nikulainen 

Anna Lind 

The authors are members of The Council of Ethics for Communication