4 ms·

>X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media. But that is actually what they called out: they're not getting eyes an

>X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media. But that is actually what they called out: they're not getting eyes anymore. Views at X have cratered so hard that it's barely worth the time.

takoid 6mo ago
But it's worth their time to stay on platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon? Something isn't adding up.
- VHRanger 6mo ago
  There's presumably engagement on those two. It's better to have a smaller core of highly engaged people than a mass of disengaged eyeballs glazing over.
  - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
    Does it have to be either/or?
    - philistine 6mo ago
      Volunteer your time to do a dual strategy with content that fits both. Comms takes time, the EFF is adapting its comm strategy.
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
        Pushing messages out to multiple platforms is a solved problem. Parent said > It's better to have a smaller core of highly engaged people than a mass of disengaged eyeballs glazing over. which to me, it's better to spew a message out into the ether with the chance that someone might happen upon it rather than close things off entirely.
      - omgmajk 6mo ago
        Surely copy-pasting a short text and possibly a link is not actual work that takes time. All they would need to do is set up some cross-posting pipeline and the work would be pretty much zero. They could even drive people to click on mastodon/bsky links this way if they wanted people to go to the decentralized web. This take is not valid.
  - Rover222 6mo ago
    Retreating into smaller and smaller echo chambers where they get their way?
    - nerevarthelame 6mo ago
      They're also still posting on LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube (in addition to BlueSky and Mastodon). It's silly to suggest that anything outside of X is an echo chamber, or that one must communicate on a platform dominated by white supremacists to expose your ideas to a diverse audience.
  - mlrtime 6mo ago
    "...and we win by putting our time, skills, and members’ support where they will have the most impact. Right now, that means Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube" So pretty much all major sites except X. They are saying LinkedIn is more important to reach people than X, really?
- nerevarthelame 6mo ago
  On average, they're getting <9,000 views per post on X. With 100 - 150K followers on both Bluesky and Mastodon, I'd expect their impressions to beat those X numbers. But as they say in the article, their reason for leaving isn't solely the low impressions. It's the low impressions, plus "Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes," plus X's unwillingness to give users more control, consider end-to-end DM encryption, or offer transparent moderation.
  - Ferret7446 6mo ago
    So the real reason is Musk, hidden amongst some platitudes to make the political motivation less obvious.
    - idiotsecant 6mo ago
      Its wild that we've gotten to the point that 'allows tyrants to silence users on their platform' is no longer something we're allowed to dislike without it being a 'political' stance. Some time in the last 30 years acting like a reasonable and decent human being became a political statement.
    - hacker161 6mo ago
      [flagged]
  - mlrtime 6mo ago
    This is BS to be honest, they don't like Musk, which is ok, I have no problem with that. And they are reconstructing a reason to leave. Musk fired 90+% of Twitter, not just the human rights team.
- lynndotpy 6mo ago
  You can just look at the numbers. They're seeing 15x more engagement on BlueSky, and even more engagement on Mastodon compared to X: X post: 124 comments, 79 reblogs, and 337 likes BlueSky post: 245 comments, 1400 reblogs, and 6.2K likes Mastodon post: 403 reposts, 458 likes There's more ROI posting on BlueSky or Mastodon, even ignoring the fact that BlueSky and Mastodon are projects clearly more aligned with internet freedom than X is. (edited for clarity)
  - philistine 6mo ago
    And the EFF is also looking at conversion rates for those views. Are you convinced that the Elon-pilled still on X are interested in donations to the EFF compared with the weirdos on Mastodon?
    - herewulf 6mo ago
      This is on point but someone is taking offense by being called a "weirdo" (thus the down votes, I think). Yes, we are weirdos on alternate social media, just like we are weirdos who use Linux, Emacs, write Lisp, etc.. It's weird, i.e.: Unusual. "Geek" might have been a better term to use though. Geeks and weirdos donate to EFF. :)
  - poisonarena 6mo ago
    cant they just copy an paste the same messages? like are they trying to manage critical 'seconds' and the eff?
    - 93po 6mo ago
      That's why this is clearly a political jab and not a real decision.
      - idiotsecant 6mo ago
        If there is an organization who should be promoting federated, decentralized social media services over centralized robber baron engagement factories more than the EFF, I don't know who it would be. Its not political to prefer open systems.
- archagon 6mo ago
  Well, perhaps it's time to reconsider your perception of Bluesky and Mastodon.
- theshackleford 6mo ago
  > Something isn't adding up. Yes, it’s your inability to do even the most basic verification of the data underlying your understanding before making claims.
- happosai 6mo ago
  The reason to leave ex-twitter and the reason to keep using lesser platforms may not be the same reason. Probably the reason EFF keeps using mastodon/bluesky is not for reach, but to support federated platforms. As an activist organization EFF needs reach people, but also it needs to show people alternatives to surveillance capitalism exist and encourage their use.
- riffraff 6mo ago
  Bluesky and mastodon are the direction the EFF would like the internet to take, so their presence there is not tied to effectiveness in the same way.
SirMaster 6mo ago
Worth the time? Can you not just use some automation or tool to post your stuff to multiple platforms including X? I find it really hard to believe that even with lower views on X than the past, that it's literally not worth the tiny about of effort to get their messages posted there.
gonzobonzo 6mo ago
I just checked their Facebook and X page. The X page is getting much more eyes. For instance, they posted their article "The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE" to both accounts. The results: X: 1,500 likes, 50 comments, 846 shares. Facebook: 58 likes, 8 comments, 22 shares. Bluesky: 94 likes, 3 comments, 51 shares.
- kakacik 6mo ago
  Are likes some ultimate metric? What kind of person of target audience keeps liking any post of anything that pops up? No and no obviously, they dont target some desperate addicted teens
  - nickvec 6mo ago
    Likes are obviously correlated with the number of views a post gets. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
    - fnordian_slip 6mo ago
      That assumption is only true if there is no manipulation of likes. I believe that the presence of bot farms has been extensively documented by now, which should disprove the usefulness of likes on any social media platform nowadays.
  - unixhero 6mo ago
    I for one never understood github stars Like I don't care about stars at all as a consumer as a developer nor as a repository owner.
    - thephyber 6mo ago
      You are making lots of assumptions when evaluating GitHub projects that you aren’t writing here. GH stars can indicate: which of many forks of a repo might be the most active, which of many projects in a category might be the most used/trusted, the growth trajectory of a projects (stars over time).

takoid 6mo ago

But it's worth their time to stay on platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon? Something isn't adding up.

VHRanger 6mo ago
There's presumably engagement on those two. It's better to have a smaller core of highly engaged people than a mass of disengaged eyeballs glazing over.
- hrimfaxi 6mo ago
  Does it have to be either/or?
  - philistine 6mo ago
    Volunteer your time to do a dual strategy with content that fits both. Comms takes time, the EFF is adapting its comm strategy.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
      Pushing messages out to multiple platforms is a solved problem. Parent said > It's better to have a smaller core of highly engaged people than a mass of disengaged eyeballs glazing over. which to me, it's better to spew a message out into the ether with the chance that someone might happen upon it rather than close things off entirely.
    - omgmajk 6mo ago
      Surely copy-pasting a short text and possibly a link is not actual work that takes time. All they would need to do is set up some cross-posting pipeline and the work would be pretty much zero. They could even drive people to click on mastodon/bsky links this way if they wanted people to go to the decentralized web. This take is not valid.
- Rover222 6mo ago
  Retreating into smaller and smaller echo chambers where they get their way?
  - nerevarthelame 6mo ago
    They're also still posting on LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, and YouTube (in addition to BlueSky and Mastodon). It's silly to suggest that anything outside of X is an echo chamber, or that one must communicate on a platform dominated by white supremacists to expose your ideas to a diverse audience.
- mlrtime 6mo ago
  "...and we win by putting our time, skills, and members’ support where they will have the most impact. Right now, that means Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube" So pretty much all major sites except X. They are saying LinkedIn is more important to reach people than X, really?
nerevarthelame 6mo ago
On average, they're getting <9,000 views per post on X. With 100 - 150K followers on both Bluesky and Mastodon, I'd expect their impressions to beat those X numbers. But as they say in the article, their reason for leaving isn't solely the low impressions. It's the low impressions, plus "Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes," plus X's unwillingness to give users more control, consider end-to-end DM encryption, or offer transparent moderation.
- Ferret7446 6mo ago
  So the real reason is Musk, hidden amongst some platitudes to make the political motivation less obvious.
  - idiotsecant 6mo ago
    Its wild that we've gotten to the point that 'allows tyrants to silence users on their platform' is no longer something we're allowed to dislike without it being a 'political' stance. Some time in the last 30 years acting like a reasonable and decent human being became a political statement.
  - hacker161 6mo ago
    [flagged]
- mlrtime 6mo ago
  This is BS to be honest, they don't like Musk, which is ok, I have no problem with that. And they are reconstructing a reason to leave. Musk fired 90+% of Twitter, not just the human rights team.
lynndotpy 6mo ago
You can just look at the numbers. They're seeing 15x more engagement on BlueSky, and even more engagement on Mastodon compared to X: X post: 124 comments, 79 reblogs, and 337 likes BlueSky post: 245 comments, 1400 reblogs, and 6.2K likes Mastodon post: 403 reposts, 458 likes There's more ROI posting on BlueSky or Mastodon, even ignoring the fact that BlueSky and Mastodon are projects clearly more aligned with internet freedom than X is. (edited for clarity)
- philistine 6mo ago
  And the EFF is also looking at conversion rates for those views. Are you convinced that the Elon-pilled still on X are interested in donations to the EFF compared with the weirdos on Mastodon?
  - herewulf 6mo ago
    This is on point but someone is taking offense by being called a "weirdo" (thus the down votes, I think). Yes, we are weirdos on alternate social media, just like we are weirdos who use Linux, Emacs, write Lisp, etc.. It's weird, i.e.: Unusual. "Geek" might have been a better term to use though. Geeks and weirdos donate to EFF. :)
- poisonarena 6mo ago
  cant they just copy an paste the same messages? like are they trying to manage critical 'seconds' and the eff?
  - 93po 6mo ago
    That's why this is clearly a political jab and not a real decision.
    - idiotsecant 6mo ago
      If there is an organization who should be promoting federated, decentralized social media services over centralized robber baron engagement factories more than the EFF, I don't know who it would be. Its not political to prefer open systems.
archagon 6mo ago
Well, perhaps it's time to reconsider your perception of Bluesky and Mastodon.
theshackleford 6mo ago
> Something isn't adding up. Yes, it’s your inability to do even the most basic verification of the data underlying your understanding before making claims.
happosai 6mo ago
The reason to leave ex-twitter and the reason to keep using lesser platforms may not be the same reason. Probably the reason EFF keeps using mastodon/bluesky is not for reach, but to support federated platforms. As an activist organization EFF needs reach people, but also it needs to show people alternatives to surveillance capitalism exist and encourage their use.
riffraff 6mo ago
Bluesky and mastodon are the direction the EFF would like the internet to take, so their presence there is not tied to effectiveness in the same way.

SirMaster 6mo ago

Worth the time? Can you not just use some automation or tool to post your stuff to multiple platforms including X? I find it really hard to believe that even with lower views on X than the past, that it's literally not worth the tiny about of effort to get their messages posted there.

gonzobonzo 6mo ago

I just checked their Facebook and X page. The X page is getting much more eyes. For instance, they posted their article "The FAA’s “Temporary” Flight Restriction for Drones is a Blatant Attempt to Criminalize Filming ICE" to both accounts. The results: X: 1,500 likes, 50 comments, 846 shares. Facebook: 58 likes, 8 comments, 22 shares. Bluesky: 94 likes, 3 comments, 51 shares.

kakacik 6mo ago
Are likes some ultimate metric? What kind of person of target audience keeps liking any post of anything that pops up? No and no obviously, they dont target some desperate addicted teens
- nickvec 6mo ago
  Likes are obviously correlated with the number of views a post gets. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
  - fnordian_slip 6mo ago
    That assumption is only true if there is no manipulation of likes. I believe that the presence of bot farms has been extensively documented by now, which should disprove the usefulness of likes on any social media platform nowadays.
- unixhero 6mo ago
  I for one never understood github stars Like I don't care about stars at all as a consumer as a developer nor as a repository owner.
  - thephyber 6mo ago
    You are making lots of assumptions when evaluating GitHub projects that you aren’t writing here. GH stars can indicate: which of many forks of a repo might be the most active, which of many projects in a category might be the most used/trusted, the growth trajectory of a projects (stars over time).