Did the Ministry for Culture & Heritage close its Twitter account to protest Elon Musk?
No. Not really. Probably not anyway.
Twitter, now called X, has undergone sweeping changes since Elon Musk took over. Many of which have alienated leftwing users and organisations. Musk’s “free speech absolutism” has, in particular, loosened moderation standards.
Like most things, Musk’s Twitter isn’t all good or all bad. It has been a mixed bag, reflecting the usual trade-offs of digital freedom.
There is no denying this has allowed overt racism and bigotry more space to fester. At the same time, the platform is far less suppressive towards ordinary, non-racist conservative content. Funnily enough, an increase in the latter form of content seems to have upset many progressives more than the increase in the former.
Against this backdrop, organisations have had to decide whether to stay or leave. When the Ministry for Culture and Heritage announced it would deactivate the @NZHistory Twitter account, many naturally wondered whether politics played a role. After all, the account, with over 11,000 followers, had been a significant channel for engaging the public on New Zealand history.
However, as revealed in documents released under the Official Information Act, the reality is more nuanced—and far less sensational.
Leaving Twitter isn’t always about politics
It is pretty clear that the Ministry’s decision to deactivate @NZHistory was primarily driven by strategic and operational factors. Analytics revealed consistently low engagement on the account—hovering around 5% or less. The led to the view that the account just wasn’t effectively driving traffic to the NZHistory website.
Resource constraints also played a significant role. Maintaining an active social media presence requires time and time costs money. As part of a broader review of its social media strategy, the Ministry opted to decommission several underperforming channels, including both the Twitter and Facebook pages for NZHistory and Te Ara.
Content from these accounts is now being consolidated under the Ministry’s main corporate channels, where resources can be used more efficiently.
All this suggests the decision was largely practical, focused on what was working and what wasn’t.
The Misinformation Caveat
Resource limitations and low engagement were clearly the primary drivers. However, the Ministry’s views on misinformation and polarisation also played a role. In its review, the Ministry noted that Twitter had become increasingly dominated by misinformation and divisive content, which it said undermined trust in the platform.
It also pointed out that several other government and cultural sector agencies, such as the National Library and Creative NZ, had already left Twitter, aligning the Ministry’s decision with a broader trend.
These concerns are not ideologically neutral. The discourse around misinformation and polarisation on Twitter often carries a left-coded perspective, reflecting unease with the way the loosening of content moderation standards no longer suppresses widely held views less popular among the media and governing elite. Claims of widespread "misinformation" have often conflated unpopular or dissenting views with outright falsehoods. Time and time again, moral panics about misinformation have been revealed to be heavily biased, serving as a rhetorical tool to delegitimise perspectives that challenge the progressive consensus rather than fostering genuine accountability or truth.
This raises questions about whether the Ministry’s views of Twitter’s toxicity was entirely apolitical.
Consistency Matters
This is why the Ministry’s next steps will be critical. If it remains consistent in its social media strategy—focusing on platforms that align with its operational priorities—it will reinforce the idea that the decision to leave Twitter was purely pragmatic. However, if the Ministry shifts its focus to platforms like BlueSky, a newer alternative often described as a more left-leaning Twitter (but which is also quite toxic) it would cast doubt on its apolitical claims.
A move to such a platform would raise legitimate questions about whether the Ministry’s decision to leave Twitter was influenced by political leanings after all.
A Dog Bites Man Story—For Now
All that is speculation about the future. Based on what we can see now, the @NZHistory case is a “dog bites man” story: a routine decision made for routine reasons. First and foremost, the Ministry deactivated the account because it wasn’t performing effectively, and its resources could be better spent elsewhere.
For now, the Ministry’s rationale seems reasonable, if not entirely free of questions. Its decision reflects the complicated trade-offs of managing public engagement at a time in which resources are rightly constrained due to the need for fiscal discipline. Those of us on the right can hardly dismiss the Ministry’s reasoning completely out of hand.