> This article only has two paragraphs about NPR. Wow, I thought I had clicked through to the wrong article because there are so many paragraphs that are seemi

> This article only has two paragraphs about NPR. Wow, I thought I had clicked through to the wrong article because there are so many paragraphs that are seemingly unrelated to the headline. Also, Cory seems to have fudged the facts a bit, since NPR's move didn't have "no effect" as he claimed. It had a "negligible" impact, according to NiemanReports. [1] Is this nitpicking? Yes. But when you choose a headline that misrepresents the facts (even those you present in your article, many paragraphs down), then it's appropriate. NiemanReports' article also has some enlightening data regarding the magnitude of the impact. > A memo circulated to NPR staff says traffic has dropped by only a single percentage point as a result of leaving Twitter, now officially renamed X, though traffic from the platform was small already and accounted for just under two percent of traffic before the posting stopped So if less than 2% of the total traffic came from Twitter previously, and the total traffic has since dropped by 1%, that means that by removing their account they lost more than half of their Twitter-sourced traffic. For a publisher like NPR, which had minimal Twitter-sourced traffic in the first place, that isn't too big a deal. But it means that other publishers shouldn't hastily delete their Twitter accounts, thinking that their traffic won't drop materially. If NPR's experience is representative, a publisher should expect to lose just over half of their Twitter-sourced traffic if they delete their account. 1: https://niemanreports.org/articles/npr-twitter-musk/ https://niemanreports.org/articles/npr-twitter-musk/