Introduction
In a recent broadcast, Arjen Lubach fiercely criticized Dutch politicians and journalists who remain active on X (formerly Twitter), despite growing criticism of the platform. According to Lubach, it is incomprehensible that public figures—who often present themselves as guardians of democracy—use a platform widely seen as toxic and polarizing. But how can they switch to open, decentralized alternatives like Mastodon and Matrix without losing their reach? And why is this actually so important? In this article, we delve into the discussion, provide an overview of the best alternatives, and outline a practical strategy for a gradual transition. Who Arjen Lubach is and why his voice carries so much weight is explained at the end of this article.
Watch Arjen Lubach’s broadcast on X and social mediaThe Criticism of X: Why Is the Platform Problematic?
X, under the leadership of Elon Musk, has been controversial for some time. The platform is associated with the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and a lack of effective moderation. Additionally, X is a closed, proprietary platform: users have no influence over the rules, algorithms, or the future of the platform. This contradicts the values of openness, transparency, and democracy that politicians and journalists claim to uphold. Yet, many of them remain active on X, often arguing that "everyone is there anyway."
1. The Lock-in Effect of X
Many politicians and journalists are accustomed to X and have built large networks there. The idea of moving to a new platform, where fewer people may be active, feels like a step backward. Moreover, X still plays a significant role in news and public opinion. Those not on X might miss important conversations and developments.
2. Lack of Knowledge About Alternatives
While platforms like Mastodon have existed for years, they remain unknown to many. Mastodon is decentralized: instead of one central platform, there are thousands of independent "instances" (servers) connected to each other. This makes the platform more resilient and democratic, but also more complex for new users. Matrix offers different advantages, such as end-to-end encryption and integration with other communication tools. However, without clear explanations and guidance, these alternatives can seem intimidating.
3. The Fear of Losing Relevance
For politicians and journalists, visibility is crucial. X still offers a wide reach, especially among influential groups. The idea of giving up that reach—even if it means continuing to contribute to a platform that no longer aligns with their values—is difficult for many.
Open Alternatives: What Are the Options?
Fortunately, there are fully-fledged alternatives to X that better align with the values of openness, transparency, and user control. Here’s a brief overview:
| Platform | Type | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mastodon | Decentralized | No central owner, users set the rules, better privacy | More complex for beginners, less known to the general public |
| Matrix | Decentralized | End-to-end encryption, integration with other tools, open standards | Less focused on microblogging, user interface may feel unfamiliar |
| Bluesky | Centralized | User-friendly, growing community, focus on open standards | Still in development, less mature than Mastodon |
| Post.News | Open, decentralized | Focus on news and discussion, user-friendly | Less known, smaller community |
Each of these platforms has its own strengths. Mastodon is the most mature and has an active community, while Bluesky focuses on a user-friendly experience. Matrix is particularly interesting for those seeking secure, privileged communication.
A Strategy for Gradual Migration
Switching to a new platform doesn’t have to happen all at once. Lubach suggests posting on open alternatives first and later on X. This allows politicians and journalists to gradually bring their followers to new platforms without immediately losing their reach. A tool like Postiz makes this possible: you can schedule and automatically post messages on multiple platforms with a time delay. By posting first on Mastodon and later on X, public figures can ensure that the most up-to-date information is only available on open platforms. This encourages journalists and other users to also switch to Mastodon, as they would otherwise miss important updates.
Step-by-Step Plan for Politicians and Journalists:
- Create an account on Mastodon, Matrix, or Bluesky and explore how the platform works.
- Start sharing exclusive content on open platforms, such as a summary or extra context for a post that will appear later on X.
- Use tools like Postiz to automatically post messages, first on Mastodon and later on X.
- Encourage followers to also create an account on open platforms, for example, by including a link to your Mastodon profile in your X bio.
- Explain why you are switching and what the benefits of open alternatives are. Transparency helps others take the same step.
Reactions and Examples
Lubach’s broadcast has already sparked discussion on social media. Many users agree with his criticism and call on politicians and journalists to take concrete action. Some point out that switching to open alternatives is not just a matter of technology, but also of mindset. It takes courage to leave a platform that, despite its flaws, still wields significant influence.
There are also success stories. Several journalists and activists have fully switched to Mastodon and built a new, engaged community there. Their experiences show that it is possible to remain relevant—or even become more relevant—on open platforms.
Conclusion: Time for Action
Arjen Lubach’s criticism is clear: it is time for politicians and journalists to take responsibility and switch to platforms that better align with the values of democracy and openness. This doesn’t mean you have to leave X immediately, but it does mean actively working toward a transition to open alternatives. By posting first on Mastodon, using tools like Postiz, and bringing followers along, this transition can be gradual and successful.
The question is not if we should move, but how we can do it best. The technology and tools are available. Now it’s up to politicians, journalists, and other public figures to take the step.
Who Is Arjen Lubach?
For those unfamiliar with the Dutch media landscape: Arjen Lubach is one of the most influential satirists and television presenters in the Netherlands. With his programs Zondag met Lubach and later Lubach on RTL, he has become an important voice in societal debate. Lubach is known for his sharp, humorous, and often critical approach to current events, politics, and social issues. His broadcasts frequently lead to parliamentary questions, political changes, and societal discussions. His influence is so great that his calls to action—such as the "Bye Bye Facebook" campaign—often have concrete consequences. Lubach uses satire to make complex topics accessible and to hold the powerful accountable. His style is comparable to that of John Oliver or Stephen Colbert, but with a distinctly Dutch twist. Those who know Lubach understand: when he speaks, the Netherlands listens.
Introduction
In a recent broadcast, Arjen Lubach fiercely criticized Dutch politicians and journalists who remain active on X (formerly Twitter), despite growing criticism of the platform. According to Lubach, it is incomprehensible that public figures—who often present themselves as guardians of democracy—use a platform widely seen as toxic and polarizing. But how can they switch to open, decentralized alternatives like Mastodon and Matrix without losing their reach? And why is this actually so important? In this article, we delve into the discussion, provide an overview of the best alternatives, and outline a practical strategy for a gradual transition. Who Arjen Lubach is and why his voice carries so much weight is explained at the end of this article.
Watch Arjen Lubach’s broadcast on X and social mediaThe Criticism of X: Why Is the Platform Problematic?
X, under the leadership of Elon Musk, has been controversial for some time. The platform is associated with the spread of disinformation, hate speech, and a lack of effective moderation. Additionally, X is a closed, proprietary platform: users have no influence over the rules, algorithms, or the future of the platform. This contradicts the values of openness, transparency, and democracy that politicians and journalists claim to uphold. Yet, many of them remain active on X, often arguing that "everyone is there anyway."
1. The Lock-in Effect of X
Many politicians and journalists are accustomed to X and have built large networks there. The idea of moving to a new platform, where fewer people may be active, feels like a step backward. Moreover, X still plays a significant role in news and public opinion. Those not on X might miss important conversations and developments.
2. Lack of Knowledge About Alternatives
While platforms like Mastodon have existed for years, they remain unknown to many. Mastodon is decentralized: instead of one central platform, there are thousands of independent "instances" (servers) connected to each other. This makes the platform more resilient and democratic, but also more complex for new users. Matrix offers different advantages, such as end-to-end encryption and integration with other communication tools. However, without clear explanations and guidance, these alternatives can seem intimidating.
3. The Fear of Losing Relevance
For politicians and journalists, visibility is crucial. X still offers a wide reach, especially among influential groups. The idea of giving up that reach—even if it means continuing to contribute to a platform that no longer aligns with their values—is difficult for many.
Open Alternatives: What Are the Options?
Fortunately, there are fully-fledged alternatives to X that better align with the values of openness, transparency, and user control. Here’s a brief overview:
| Platform | Type | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mastodon | Decentralized | No central owner, users set the rules, better privacy | More complex for beginners, less known to the general public |
| Matrix | Decentralized | End-to-end encryption, integration with other tools, open standards | Less focused on microblogging, user interface may feel unfamiliar |
| Bluesky | Centralized | User-friendly, growing community, focus on open standards | Still in development, less mature than Mastodon |
| Post.News | Open, decentralized | Focus on news and discussion, user-friendly | Less known, smaller community |
Each of these platforms has its own strengths. Mastodon is the most mature and has an active community, while Bluesky focuses on a user-friendly experience. Matrix is particularly interesting for those seeking secure, privileged communication.
A Strategy for Gradual Migration
Switching to a new platform doesn’t have to happen all at once. Lubach suggests posting on open alternatives first and later on X. This allows politicians and journalists to gradually bring their followers to new platforms without immediately losing their reach. A tool like Postiz makes this possible: you can schedule and automatically post messages on multiple platforms with a time delay. By posting first on Mastodon and later on X, public figures can ensure that the most up-to-date information is only available on open platforms. This encourages journalists and other users to also switch to Mastodon, as they would otherwise miss important updates.
Step-by-Step Plan for Politicians and Journalists:
- Create an account on Mastodon, Matrix, or Bluesky and explore how the platform works.
- Start sharing exclusive content on open platforms, such as a summary or extra context for a post that will appear later on X.
- Use tools like Postiz to automatically post messages, first on Mastodon and later on X.
- Encourage followers to also create an account on open platforms, for example, by including a link to your Mastodon profile in your X bio.
- Explain why you are switching and what the benefits of open alternatives are. Transparency helps others take the same step.
Reactions and Examples
Lubach’s broadcast has already sparked discussion on social media. Many users agree with his criticism and call on politicians and journalists to take concrete action. Some point out that switching to open alternatives is not just a matter of technology, but also of mindset. It takes courage to leave a platform that, despite its flaws, still wields significant influence.
There are also success stories. Several journalists and activists have fully switched to Mastodon and built a new, engaged community there. Their experiences show that it is possible to remain relevant—or even become more relevant—on open platforms.
Conclusion: Time for Action
Arjen Lubach’s criticism is clear: it is time for politicians and journalists to take responsibility and switch to platforms that better align with the values of democracy and openness. This doesn’t mean you have to leave X immediately, but it does mean actively working toward a transition to open alternatives. By posting first on Mastodon, using tools like Postiz, and bringing followers along, this transition can be gradual and successful.
The question is not if we should move, but how we can do it best. The technology and tools are available. Now it’s up to politicians, journalists, and other public figures to take the step.
Who Is Arjen Lubach?
For those unfamiliar with the Dutch media landscape: Arjen Lubach is one of the most influential satirists and television presenters in the Netherlands. With his programs Zondag met Lubach and later Lubach on RTL, he has become an important voice in societal debate. Lubach is known for his sharp, humorous, and often critical approach to current events, politics, and social issues. His broadcasts frequently lead to parliamentary questions, political changes, and societal discussions. His influence is so great that his calls to action—such as the "Bye Bye Facebook" campaign—often have concrete consequences. Lubach uses satire to make complex topics accessible and to hold the powerful accountable. His style is comparable to that of John Oliver or Stephen Colbert, but with a distinctly Dutch twist. Those who know Lubach understand: when he speaks, the Netherlands listens.