Illustration: Shutterstock Just before the Christmas holidays, an announcement was posted on the intranet saying ‘WUR will be prolonging the temporary halt of its activities on X’. This was precisely 92 days after WUR had said it would be stopping sharing news via the social media platform ‘for a trial period of three weeks’.
Once upon a time, Twitter was the place to be for the worldwide exchange of knowledge and insights among academics. It was a Valhalla for freedom of speech and democracy. Now it has a reputation for fake news and intolerance. Disinformation has run rampant after Tesla boss Elon Musk bought the platform for a cool 46 billion dollars and rebranded it X. Not something you want to be associated with. Utrecht University, VU University Amsterdam and the University of Twente have all already drawn that conclusion. As has the Guardian in the UK, saying that ‘X is toxic’.
On 13 September, WUR said it would stop using X for three weeks. The main argument was the declining relevance. Three weeks turned into nearly 100 days. Then on 13 December a message was posted on the intranet saying WUR would be pausing its activities. Once again, the main reason given was the decline in the reach. The deliberate spreading of incorrect information and online intimidation were subsidiary reasons.
It seems the final decision will take a while to come, which is a recurring phenomenon in Wageningen: weighing up the options, postponing, talking. Choosing not to get rid of X is one example, and the lengthy hesitation about the pro-Palestinian activists’ camp was another. WUR asked the demonstrators to leave on 14 July 2024 and the camp was then removed on 27 November, citing the risks in a storm. Or take collaboration with the fossil fuel industry. After six months of discussion including three Let’s explore sessions and setting up an advisory committee, WUR announced in June 2023 that there would not be a strict cessation of cooperation. The gavel came down definitively on the committee’s advice in February 2024.
Why can’t the Board take a firm stance occasionally? No more hesitation: ‘We’re ditching X, we don’t belong in that digital cesspit.’ Clean and firm decisions are not always easy, especially in academic circles Weighing up the options, shades of grey and ‘yes but’ are all part of it. In the case of X, for instance: yes, but should we then say ‘No Teslas’ either? Or yes, but what do we then do with Facebook, now that Zuckerberg is stopping fact-checking? Or what about TikTok? It used to be known above all for clips of dance moves, but is now a serious danger too thanks to a smart algorithm and general terms and conditions that fly in the face of privacy legislation.
But sometimes it’s crystal clear, like now with X. WUR should stop hesitating and take a firm decision. For the right reason: Musk is a danger to democracy, so we’re stopping.
This Comment presents the views and analyses of the editorial board, formulated following discussions among the editors.
