Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia leaves X following The Guardian

La Vanguardia leaves X over concerns of disinformation

A newspaper with over a century of print history has decided that its main problem is the social network where it no longer holds sway. La Vanguardia announced it is stopping its activity on X, labeling it "a disinformation network," joining The Guardian, which made the same announcement just days earlier. The argument used by the Catalan newspaper, owned by Grupo Godo, is that Elon Musk's platform allows viral content that "attacks human rights," including hostility toward ethnic minorities, misogyny, and racism. The news, reported by The Objective, has triggered a wave of reactions blending ideological score-settling with power analysis.

La Vanguardia's reasoning and the context behind it

The Catalan daily's statement is unambiguous: it speaks of viral content that abusa human rights and positions X as the ecosystem where such ideas thrive. This is the same thesis held by The Guardian upon announcing its departure. Two major news outlets, same script, same week. For some segments of the public, this is not an editorial decision but a coordinated move: a campaign to reject Trump's victory and attempt to build a parallel network where the narrative is once again under control.

This suspicion is not unfounded. For years, moderation on major platforms acted as a funnel: according to circulating analyses, any opinion outside the pogre consensus could lead to account suspension, and it is noted that even the U.S. President was once banned. With Musk at the helm, that mechanism was dismantled, the staff dedicated to censorship was drastically reduced, and only content that constitutes a crime is penalized. The result, they say, is that one can now disagree without being deleted. And to the left, that is called disinformation.

The business of leaving: stopping posts without deleting accounts

This is where the telling detail appears. Several analyses agree on a pattern: they announce they are leaving but do not close the account. Neither La Vanguardia nor The Guardian have deleted their profiles. They stop posting, but keep the door open. The cynical reading is that this is a temper tantrum with an expiration date: in a few days, when the storm blows over, they will return with their tails between their legs. If Musk wanted to save them the embarrassment, they say, he would simply issue a permanent block and be done with it.

Furthermore, Grupo Godo has a fruta for being fickle. It is often accused of always siding with whoever holds the most power and systematically making the wrong bets. When the wind blows in another direction, they will change sides without hesitation. In such a calculation, editorial consistency is a secondary asset.

Bluesky: the refuge for those departing

The alternative being promoted is Bluesky, presented as the new home for the exiled. Skepticism is widespread: it is being compared to Mastodon 2.0, a network that no one uses and where newcomers will simply recreate the same dynamics they are fleeing. The sequence repeats: they colonize a space, people disagree with them, they move to another, and set up the same enclosure again. Instagram, being more aesthetic and less political, is currently avoiding this cycle.

Some go further, suggesting the movement is not individual but orchestrated: a directive from the top that media outlets and celebrities execute in unison. The lack of autonomy attributed to them is, in the eyes of many, more striking than the decision itself.

The puzzling fact

While these headlines announce their withdrawal, the platform they are abandoning continues to function with a reduced staff and without the censors that previously populated it. The paradox is that the argument of disinformation is being launched by media outlets that for years were pointed out as part of the problem. Meanwhile, the public has already learned to find information on its own, bypassing intermediaries. That, and nothing else, is what remains unswallowed.