Should churches and NGOs be active on social media platforms or leave them entirely due to ethical and rights concerns? Should civil society be doing more to hold social media platforms accountable?

Three prominent voices offered differing perspectives on the role of social media for civil society, churches, and NGOs during the WACC Europe webinar “X and Meta: Should I stay or should I go?” on 21 January.

Civil society must take responsibility

Philip Lee, WACC Global general secretary, urged civil society to take a more proactive role in holding social media platforms accountable.

Social media platforms pose significant challenges to democracy and accountability, Lee emphasized. He highlighted the global influence of companies like Meta and X, noting their role in amplifying opinions and content at unprecedented speeds. While acknowledging the potential of these platforms, Lee criticized their growing irresponsibility, particularly their reduced commitment to fact-checking and their advocacy for deregulation.

He pointed to the reliance of social media platforms on automated systems to address severe content violations as well as their dependence on user reporting for less critical issues. This, he argued, creates significant barriers to accountability. He also highlighted the lack of transparency in content moderation processes, algorithmic decision-making, and data collection practices.

To address these challenges, Lee called on civil society to take a leading role in promoting media literacy, supporting public interest journalism, and engaging in counter-speech initiatives. He argued that these efforts are essential for creating an informed public and challenging divisive narratives that dominate digital spaces.

Stay and engage strategically

Christian Sterzik, chief digital officer of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), advocated for staying on platforms like X and Meta but within a clear and thoughtful digital strategy.

He offered a nuanced perspective on the use of social media by churches and Christian organizations. Social media is complex, he acknowledged, a gray zone where both beneficial and harmful content coexist. Using the biblical parable of wheat and weeds, Sterzik illustrated the need to balance these dynamics, emphasizing that engagement in such spaces requires careful consideration of the risks and benefits.

A strategic approach to social media engagement is important, he stressed, urging organizations to diversify their presence across multiple platforms and to avoid reliance on a single one. The adage “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” applies, according to Sterzik. By engaging in different social networks, organizations can reach broader audiences while minimizing risks associated with sudden changes in platform policies or algorithms.

While acknowledging the challenges posed by social media, Sterzik argued that platforms like X and Meta can still serve as valuable tools for promoting positive messages and fostering societal engagement. He maintained that as long as these platforms operate within legal frameworks, churches have a responsibility to remain active and leverage these spaces for the common good.

Leave X in order to uphold ethical standards

Markus Eisele, director of Diakonie Frankfurt and Offenbach, presented a different view, calling on churches and Christian institutions to leave X entirely, describing it as increasingly toxic and harmful.

He shared that his organization had already made this decision due to the rise in hate speech, trolling, and disinformation on the platform. Eisele also criticized X’s move toward paid features, which he said disproportionately favor those with financial resources while undermining the visibility of organizations like NGOs.

Eisele compared the situation to playing a soccer match where the referee not only tolerates but actively encourages foul play and toxic behavior. In such a scenario, he argued, the only reasonable option is to leave the game entirely.

He also expressed concerns about X’s declining safety measures, which have made the platform less secure, particularly for vulnerable groups. Eisele described how his colleagues, who work with marginalized communities, have witnessed firsthand the harmful effects of online hate speech and dehumanizing language.

Furthermore, he highlighted the growing association of NGOs and social movements with negative public perceptions due to their presence on platforms like X. This, he argued, risks eroding the trust and credibility these organizations have built with their communities.

Instead of spending resources on toxic platforms, Eisele called on churches and NGOs to focus their efforts on fostering meaningful engagement in safer venues.

“X and Meta: Should I stay or should I go?” was the second in a series of monthly discussions that WACC Europe has launched to explore key topics facing communicators. The online events take place every third Tuesday from 10-11am Central European Time. The next one will be held on 18 February.