Why Did GreenSquareAccord Really Leave X – And Will They Now Leave Facebook?

In April 2024, GreenSquareAccord announced that it had deactivated its account on X (formerly Twitter). The official reasons given were concerns over the platform’s “unfiltered inappropriate content” and a drop in engagement. According to Steve Hayes, director of corporate affairs and communication, the platform had become “so clearly out of sync with our culture and values” that remaining on it was no longer viable.

However, this reasoning did not hold up to scrutiny. In Housing Sector Podcast Episode #13 – Behind The Spin, I demonstrated that there was little evidence of hate speech dominating the platform—at least not in the housing sector space. If anything, X had provided an open forum where residents could voice concerns, often directing criticism at housing providers.

The claim that engagement had been falling on X was also misleading. While GreenSquareAccord stated that it had been losing followers on X while growing on other platforms, this did not align with their continued presence on Instagram—a platform with significantly lower engagement, especially from actual residents. If engagement had been the primary concern, Instagram would likely have been the first platform to go.

GreenSquareAccord also argued that residents had rarely used X for communication and that the platform’s inefficiencies had made responding difficult. Yet, their approach to resident engagement had remained unchanged across platforms. On X, their standard response to complaints had been to request an email rather than addressing concerns publicly. The same pattern was evident on Facebook. The problem had never been X’s limitations—it had been GreenSquareAccord’s unwillingness to engage transparently with residents’ concerns.

The Real Reason Behind the Exodus?

GreenSquareAccord’s departure came amid a broader industry trend of organisations publicly distancing themselves from X following Elon Musk’s takeover. Many within the housing sector, eager to align themselves with the dominant rhetoric of the time, supported the move. Their stance conveniently fit within the prevailing narrative that Musk’s ownership had made X an inhospitable platform.

Yet, the hypocrisy was striking. Many of those who claimed to champion free speech were actively suppressing it when it came from voices they disagreed with—especially residents and critics pointing out the reality behind the curated corporate image.

This carefully managed façade is central to Careless People, Sarah Wynn-Williams’s powerful memoir about her time inside Facebook. Describing the inner workings of one of the world’s most powerful companies, she writes:

“The culture was built to maintain an illusion: that we were listening, while quietly filtering out voices that threatened the narrative.”

It’s a line that resonates far beyond Silicon Valley.

Wynn-Williams exposes how Facebook’s leadership created an ecosystem of “controlled chaos,” where power remained tightly centralised while projecting an outward image of openness and community. That illusion, she suggests, was the product of an internal playbook: listen just enough to say you’re listening—but never enough to be held accountable.

But What About Facebook?

At the time of their exit from X, Facebook had aligned itself with the Biden administration and the political left—something it distanced itself from once Trump was well on his way to being re-elected. This shift exposed its previous stance as little more than a facade.

In Careless People, Wynn-Williams recalls:

“Facebook didn’t stand for values. It stood for advantage. Ideals were seasonal.”

The parallel with GreenSquareAccord is hard to miss. If their decision to abandon X was value-driven, how do they justify staying on Facebook—a platform long associated with data harvesting, algorithmic misinformation, and opaque governance?

The truth is likely simpler: platforms like Facebook offer more tools to control the message. Posts can be hidden. Comments filtered. Algorithms used to reduce visibility. And when necessary, accounts—especially critical ones—can simply be blocked or reported.

A Pattern of Silencing Criticism

GreenSquareAccord’s attempt to control narratives extended far beyond social media. They’ve used legal threats to pressure local press, deployed SLAPP tactics to intimidate critics, and have even been discussed in the House of Commons for these practices.

This mirrors Wynn-Williams’s own experience. After leaving Facebook, she was served with a gag order and pressured into silence. In her interview with Vulture, she says:

“Speaking out felt like an act of defiance. They wanted to make me tired, doubtful, small.”

That’s an experience familiar to many residents who’ve dared to challenge housing associations—who’ve been made to feel that complaining is a nuisance, and that raising concerns is somehow adversarial rather than a basic right.

Inside Housing, which reported on GreenSquareAccord’s departure from X, revealed it had received legal threats from an unnamed housing association. Yet, Steve Hayes—who claimed surprise at the reporting—was later invited to speak at an Inside Housing event titled “What does an effective social media strategy look like in today’s landscape?”

To quote Careless People again:

“Power always looks calm from the outside. Inside, it’s a scramble to preserve the myth.”

Will GreenSquareAccord Silence Residents Again?

Previously, GreenSquareAccord restricted comments on Facebook, preventing residents from publicly voicing concerns. Now, with a growing number of complaints appearing on their page, will they resort to the same tactics?

Wynn-Williams’s reflections offer a chilling warning:

“We told ourselves we were protecting people. But really, we were protecting the company.”

That same mindset—of control dressed as care—now seems evident in how some housing associations operate online. If GreenSquareAccord’s decision to leave X was never really about ethics, then perhaps their next move will be to abandon Facebook too. Not because it’s the right thing to do, but because they’ve lost control of the story.

And after reading this, have I just handed them the perfect excuse?