Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

I am wondering if the actual reason is the recent change in the terms of service:

New terms of service that will take effect on 15 November specify that any lawsuits against X by users must be exclusively filed in the US district court for the northern district of Texas or state courts in Tarrant county, Texas.

Do business accounts have the same ToS as regular users?

That doesn't feel likely. 1 because Guardian isn't really in a position to enter a legal battle vs ~unlimited spiteful money. 2 because this is likely not enforcible if anyone actually has a reason to sue them abroad where the company has presence. It's just terms of service rather than a contract binding you in other ways - they can deny you service after you sue.

Why would the Guardian expect to have to sue X?

Unauthorized AI training on their content?

> New terms of service that will take effect on 15 November specify that any lawsuits against X by users must be exclusively filed in the US district court for the northern district of Texas or state courts in Tarrant county, Texas.

Is this even something TOS can legally enforce?

Google's Terms of Service state that "California law will govern all disputes arising out of or relating to these terms, service-specific additional terms, or any related services, regardless of conflict of laws rules. These disputes will be resolved exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts." [1]. So I suppose as much as any TOS is enforceable.

[1] https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en-US#toc-problems

The reason is their lack of engagement. Take a long scroll through their timeline: 11m followers and they have single/double digit likes and retweets. It’s been like that for many years.