That’s beginning to wane. The fewer major posters there are, the fewer people will look to the site for information. And the fewer people on there looking for info…etc.
The problem is for organizations it’s harder to leave because that is where the people you want to reach are. That’s the only reason any org or company is on social media in the first place. If they leave too soon they risk too many people not seeing the things they send out to the community.
It’s more an individual thing because so many people just have social inertia and haven’t left since everyone they know is already there. The first to leave have to decide if they want to juggle using another platform to keep connections or cut off connections by abandoning the established platform.
That doesn’t explain why they don’t start a transition by posting to both the new platform and the old. And not including links to their new account on their websites.
Doesn’t Twitter directly suppress such links? I remember there was a crackdown on people linking their mastodon accounts a while back.
And external links in general get a huge suppression in the algorithm because Twitter does not want to recommend tweets that take you off the site.
The platform actively fights you if you want to move elsewhere (which should really be a telltale sign for you to move), so I get why some orgs struggle with that decision. Doubly so if your job relies on the platform’s outreach.
Wild that so many are still hanging out at the Nazi bar
Its that social inertia, and I get it.
I ran a neighborhood group’s social media, and even after FB turned openly shitty, I had to stay on there, because thats where people are.
I mean, I could have pushed the org to drop them, but then we would have lost the eyeballs of thousands of neighbor’s we’re trying to work FOR.
Same deal with Twitter, they’ve just gotten to the point where most NPOs lose less by leaving than they would by staying.
That’s beginning to wane. The fewer major posters there are, the fewer people will look to the site for information. And the fewer people on there looking for info…etc.
Yep, it’s viable now for many orgs…
its not surprising considering the overlap. many linux users are cryptofascists, i.e. luke smith
Yes, I’m sadly surprised by many open source projects still posting on that cesspool
The problem is for organizations it’s harder to leave because that is where the people you want to reach are. That’s the only reason any org or company is on social media in the first place. If they leave too soon they risk too many people not seeing the things they send out to the community.
It’s more an individual thing because so many people just have social inertia and haven’t left since everyone they know is already there. The first to leave have to decide if they want to juggle using another platform to keep connections or cut off connections by abandoning the established platform.
That doesn’t explain why they don’t start a transition by posting to both the new platform and the old. And not including links to their new account on their websites.
Doesn’t Twitter directly suppress such links? I remember there was a crackdown on people linking their mastodon accounts a while back.
And external links in general get a huge suppression in the algorithm because Twitter does not want to recommend tweets that take you off the site.
The platform actively fights you if you want to move elsewhere (which should really be a telltale sign for you to move), so I get why some orgs struggle with that decision. Doubly so if your job relies on the platform’s outreach.
I’m talking about posting on their website a link to alternative social media accounts.
Because they allow smoking
Everyone who have use Twitter in the past 2 years is a nazi.
That’s a very silly take