3 ms·

They're a global issues advocacy organization. "Their target audience" is everyone, or at least it ought to be if they're doing their job right. Ignoring peopl

by Ajedi32 7mo ago

They're a global issues advocacy organization. "Their target audience" is everyone, or at least it ought to be if they're doing their job right. Ignoring people of any demographic or political persuasion would be a serious strategic mistake in my opinion.

trelane 7mo ago
> "Their target audience" is everyone, or at least it ought to be if they're doing their job right Yes. If.
solid_fuel 7mo ago
By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them. I think you just need to accept that clearly the EFF is not getting engagement on Twitter anymore - either because the academic and professional crowd has largely left for better moderated, more interesting spaces (like I and most of my friends did). Or because they are being downranked by the algorithm. In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have, clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform.
- Levitz 7mo ago
  >By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them. And if it costed as much as posting on X, they should. >In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have And people take issue precisely with that not making any sense, which leads people to look at stuff like >clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform. By which I mean "stuff like that statement". Not that they ACTUALLY face any reputational harm (a ludicrous assertion) but that the politics high above have shifted in such a way that they'd agree with something like that. This betrays their mission and paints a bad picture of their future, which ironically, does incur in reputational harm.

by Ajedi32 7mo ago

trelane 7mo ago

> "Their target audience" is everyone, or at least it ought to be if they're doing their job right Yes. If.

solid_fuel 7mo ago

By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them. I think you just need to accept that clearly the EFF is not getting engagement on Twitter anymore - either because the academic and professional crowd has largely left for better moderated, more interesting spaces (like I and most of my friends did). Or because they are being downranked by the algorithm. In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have, clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform.

Levitz 7mo ago
>By that logic they should be printing memos and dumping them in the Hudson, in case some of the people swimming there want to read them. And if it costed as much as posting on X, they should. >In either case, they're making this decision based on data that they have And people take issue precisely with that not making any sense, which leads people to look at stuff like >clearly the tiny amount of traffic from Twitter is not worth the effort and reputational harm that comes from staying on the platform. By which I mean "stuff like that statement". Not that they ACTUALLY face any reputational harm (a ludicrous assertion) but that the politics high above have shifted in such a way that they'd agree with something like that. This betrays their mission and paints a bad picture of their future, which ironically, does incur in reputational harm.