This seems also intended to be read as the BBC deprecating its presence on X, which alternative-universe situation is implied by the wording of the title and anti-X stance of the writer generally; obviously that's not the case, however much it might be wished here.
X is not mentioned in the title and the very first sentence of the article says that the BBC accounts are still on X/Twitter. What gives you the impression that the intention was for this to be read as the contrary?
I think it could much more fairly be read as "...out of alternate sources for real-time short-form communication, BBC has given up on Threads, but is sticking with Mastodon".
Twitter/X is the 'default' and the assumption that media will be on it...while Threads and Mastodon are the _alternatives_. This article, to me, is just suggesting that BBC has dropped _one of the alternatives_.
I read the entire article, including the dismissal of X, the implied misleading message discussed, and the links at the bottom to the authors missives which have practically every platform except X.
They MAY have an X bias, but I think a much more generous interpretation is simply that they are highlighting which _alternative_ platforms BBC have given up on.
Threads and Mastodon are both _alternative_ choices, with Twitter being the main real-time shortform source. TFA highlights that BBC is giving up on threads, but not on alternatives in general.
Hold on, _not mentioning Twitter in the title_ implies that they're abandoning Twitter? How do you figure that? The title also doesn't mention chairs or toilets, but one assumes the BBC will still be using those.
