4 ms·

The story behind the numbers they present clearly demonstrates that X is censoring/shadowbanning them. Going from 600MM to 13MM impressions/yr -- losing 98% of

The story behind the numbers they present clearly demonstrates that X is censoring/shadowbanning them. Going from 600MM to 13MM impressions/yr -- losing 98% of their impressions! -- is no accident but clearly Musk's thumb on the scale. Imagine what this means if you are trying to gauge impact of a post. Remember, X is giving them zero information about who they're preventing from seeing it. Impressions is the main datapoint so if you can't figure out why you've lost 98% of your impact, how on earth are you going to evaluate it vs other platforms? And yes, each platform has a cost. There's a LOT more to social strategy than just "copy and paste this announce to every platform".

pseudohadamard 6mo ago
It's not necessarily shadowbanning (although it could well be), given that it's been turned into a cesspit where huge numbers of users left and the ones still there are probably not the demographic that would engage with the EFF, it could just be a natural consequence of Musk's wrecking it.
- dsr_ 6mo ago
  Same result, either way.
junofan 6mo ago
[flagged]
- hn_user82179 6mo ago
  > I don’t think Elon Musk personally has to put his finger on any scale. I thought EFF would be his thing too, no? Not sure why you would say that, I know he’s branded himself as a tech guy but beyond that nothing about the EFF seems to match his values. The EFF tried to sue him last year too: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/judge-rejects-governments-attempt-dismiss-eff-lawsuit-against-opm-doge-and-musk https://www.eff.org/press/releases/judge-rejects-governments...
  - junofan 6mo ago
    Maybe, I haven’t been keeping up since the cracker machine stuff. I thought EFF was a GNU-adjacent thing any generic tech person supported. I guess I was wrong.
    - tgma 6mo ago
      The GNU-adjacent thing would be FSF, and I'd say many EFF supporters are antagonistic towards the FSF (and/or RMS) because of their "extremist" stances. I'd characterize EFF as "corporate Open Source" vs. FSF/GNU "Free Software."
- KingMob 6mo ago
  The thing is, unless their posts have only gotten bad recently, it's reasonable to assume that the drop in traffic is unrelated to post quality. Algorithms, changing audiences, etc. become better explanations.
- amatecha 6mo ago
  On a decent social platform, it shouldn't even matter if their posting sucks or is lazy. If I followed them, I want to see their stuff. If I'm not seeing the posts of the accounts I follow, the site is not worth me using - same if ppl who explicitly followed me aren't seeing my posts.
- lostlogin 6mo ago
  > I thought EFF would be his thing too, no? Musk is a freedom of speech absolutist when it comes to the things he has to say. ‘I think that the bedrock of democracy is freedom of speech’ [1]. He has rather different views when it’s anyone else speaking [2]. [1] https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/tom-olohan/2024/03/20/elon-musk-bedrock-democracy-freedom-speech https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/tom-oloha... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-musk-hypocrite-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-m...
  - junofan 6mo ago
    That may be the case, but the EFF’s Twitter alone is enough to explain their poor performance. Their last post did quite well, and it is characteristically different from their other posts. I don’t think Elon Musk personally needs to put his thumb on the scale in this case. I don’t even understand why he’d be involved here and not say anything. Like wouldn’t he say “EFF sucks” or something? I dunno, I don’t really keep up with that kind of thing. It’s fine if the EFF wants to leave because they aren’t reaching people.
scarab92 6mo ago
They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky. Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming. This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.
- conception 6mo ago
  Do we have to be politically neutral to the abhorrent?
  - Levitz 6mo ago
    Probably not, but then go ahead and say it. The problem is they can't really say it, because if their stance is that Musk's management deserves such rejection, then they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and if the abhorrent ones are X users in general, they show themselves to be only on one side of the aisle, removing any legitimacy to their principles.
    - watwut 6mo ago
      They went ahead and said it. Literally. And remained completely legitimate. The problem is that people ignore what they said, so that they can argue made up "illegitimacy".
- techblueberry 6mo ago
  [dead]
- theshrike79 6mo ago
  So if they're politically neutral, should they have an account on Truth Social too in your opinion?
  - denkmoon 6mo ago
    Should they not? I can’t see why truth social users shouldn’t be a target for EFF’s message
nandomrumber 6mo ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 6mo ago
  Leaving out key parts of a quote is a disingenuous way to attempt to make a counter-argument, especially when the full quote clearly contradicts your second sentence.
  - nandomrumber 6mo ago
    No it doesn’t. I only omitted parts of the quote for brevity. Anyone can read the full original text right there in the comment I replied to. The drop in numbers don’t clearly demonstrate anything. Without the data, how do we know it’s censorship or if it’s just that their key audience up n left.
nradov 6mo ago
Is censorship the only possible explanation for the drop in impressions? Presumably the vast majority of impressions before were from bots.
- cbsmith 6mo ago
  It sort of doesn't matter. Bottom line is it isn't an effective platform for them.
- theshrike79 6mo ago
  "From bots" =) The only thing Elmo managed to do was block legitimate and fun bots posting silly stuff. The actual pretending-to-be-humans bots / professional trolls that argue for any viewpoint they get paid to endorse are still there in full force. They even pay the fee for the checkmark.
- ngc248 6mo ago
  What does it take to characterize legit users also as bots
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
dingle_thunk 6mo ago
https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/2040909183525048638 https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/2040909183525048638 The political slant in X is why.

pseudohadamard 6mo ago

It's not necessarily shadowbanning (although it could well be), given that it's been turned into a cesspit where huge numbers of users left and the ones still there are probably not the demographic that would engage with the EFF, it could just be a natural consequence of Musk's wrecking it.

dsr_ 6mo ago
Same result, either way.

junofan 6mo ago

[flagged]

hn_user82179 6mo ago
> I don’t think Elon Musk personally has to put his finger on any scale. I thought EFF would be his thing too, no? Not sure why you would say that, I know he’s branded himself as a tech guy but beyond that nothing about the EFF seems to match his values. The EFF tried to sue him last year too: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/judge-rejects-governments-attempt-dismiss-eff-lawsuit-against-opm-doge-and-musk https://www.eff.org/press/releases/judge-rejects-governments...
- junofan 6mo ago
  Maybe, I haven’t been keeping up since the cracker machine stuff. I thought EFF was a GNU-adjacent thing any generic tech person supported. I guess I was wrong.
  - tgma 6mo ago
    The GNU-adjacent thing would be FSF, and I'd say many EFF supporters are antagonistic towards the FSF (and/or RMS) because of their "extremist" stances. I'd characterize EFF as "corporate Open Source" vs. FSF/GNU "Free Software."
KingMob 6mo ago
The thing is, unless their posts have only gotten bad recently, it's reasonable to assume that the drop in traffic is unrelated to post quality. Algorithms, changing audiences, etc. become better explanations.
amatecha 6mo ago
On a decent social platform, it shouldn't even matter if their posting sucks or is lazy. If I followed them, I want to see their stuff. If I'm not seeing the posts of the accounts I follow, the site is not worth me using - same if ppl who explicitly followed me aren't seeing my posts.
lostlogin 6mo ago
> I thought EFF would be his thing too, no? Musk is a freedom of speech absolutist when it comes to the things he has to say. ‘I think that the bedrock of democracy is freedom of speech’ [1]. He has rather different views when it’s anyone else speaking [2]. [1] https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/tom-olohan/2024/03/20/elon-musk-bedrock-democracy-freedom-speech https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/free-speech/tom-oloha... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-musk-hypocrite-free-speech https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/15/elon-m...
- junofan 6mo ago
  That may be the case, but the EFF’s Twitter alone is enough to explain their poor performance. Their last post did quite well, and it is characteristically different from their other posts. I don’t think Elon Musk personally needs to put his thumb on the scale in this case. I don’t even understand why he’d be involved here and not say anything. Like wouldn’t he say “EFF sucks” or something? I dunno, I don’t really keep up with that kind of thing. It’s fine if the EFF wants to leave because they aren’t reaching people.

scarab92 6mo ago

They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky. Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming. This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.

conception 6mo ago
Do we have to be politically neutral to the abhorrent?
- Levitz 6mo ago
  Probably not, but then go ahead and say it. The problem is they can't really say it, because if their stance is that Musk's management deserves such rejection, then they are cutting their nose to spite their face, and if the abhorrent ones are X users in general, they show themselves to be only on one side of the aisle, removing any legitimacy to their principles.
  - watwut 6mo ago
    They went ahead and said it. Literally. And remained completely legitimate. The problem is that people ignore what they said, so that they can argue made up "illegitimacy".
techblueberry 6mo ago
[dead]
theshrike79 6mo ago
So if they're politically neutral, should they have an account on Truth Social too in your opinion?
- denkmoon 6mo ago
  Should they not? I can’t see why truth social users shouldn’t be a target for EFF’s message

nandomrumber 6mo ago

[flagged]

jjulius 6mo ago
Leaving out key parts of a quote is a disingenuous way to attempt to make a counter-argument, especially when the full quote clearly contradicts your second sentence.
- nandomrumber 6mo ago
  No it doesn’t. I only omitted parts of the quote for brevity. Anyone can read the full original text right there in the comment I replied to. The drop in numbers don’t clearly demonstrate anything. Without the data, how do we know it’s censorship or if it’s just that their key audience up n left.

nradov 6mo ago

Is censorship the only possible explanation for the drop in impressions? Presumably the vast majority of impressions before were from bots.

cbsmith 6mo ago
It sort of doesn't matter. Bottom line is it isn't an effective platform for them.
theshrike79 6mo ago
"From bots" =) The only thing Elmo managed to do was block legitimate and fun bots posting silly stuff. The actual pretending-to-be-humans bots / professional trolls that argue for any viewpoint they get paid to endorse are still there in full force. They even pay the fee for the checkmark.
ngc248 6mo ago
What does it take to characterize legit users also as bots

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

dingle_thunk 6mo ago

https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/2040909183525048638 https://x.com/NateSilver538/status/2040909183525048638 The political slant in X is why.