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 yhey 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.
Not really a hypothetical though. Its the very reason I kept a non-profit’s account on twitter, and facebook, and instagram, for as long as I did - Because we HAD to in order to effectively hit the mission for the non profit.
I wouldn’t argue with the dude; he’s got a clear case of bad-faith-itis. What you did was bad, so you shouldn’t have done it, but no I won’t tell you how to fix it.
The absolute best you could have done is cross-posted to a Mastodon/Bluesky/whatever account as well, but you can’t just always go around yanking the rug out underneath communities especially if you’re in a position where it’s not just lazy shitposting and worthless commentary.
…that said, you have moved anything you can to being posted somewhere in tandem riiiiiiight?
how am i supposed to give you a better strategy when you’re just giving the vaguest possible “scenario”.
here’s a good strategy:
don’t support nazi’s.
boycott all nazis.
they make money off advertising to users, by being a user, you are financially supporting nazis… stop it.
pretending like the only possible way to communicate with your desired audience is by supporting nazis is uncreative, ineffective, lazy, and destructive… that reasoning is why places like that continue to exist and grow.
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 yhey 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.
yeah, it’s so inconvenient to not directly support the nazi platform
If I ran an org, that needed to reach a community of say… 1000 people in need, and 900 of those people were ONLY on twitter, guess what?
That org needs to be on twitter, even if President Musk is profiting from it. Otherwise, the org would be remiss in their mission.
nice hypothetical but no
Not really a hypothetical though. Its the very reason I kept a non-profit’s account on twitter, and facebook, and instagram, for as long as I did - Because we HAD to in order to effectively hit the mission for the non profit.
sounds lazy, uncreative, and ineffective
What would be the unlazy, creative, and effective strategy?
BTW, remaining where our community members are is very effective at messaging to the community we need to communicate with…
I wouldn’t argue with the dude; he’s got a clear case of bad-faith-itis. What you did was bad, so you shouldn’t have done it, but no I won’t tell you how to fix it.
The absolute best you could have done is cross-posted to a Mastodon/Bluesky/whatever account as well, but you can’t just always go around yanking the rug out underneath communities especially if you’re in a position where it’s not just lazy shitposting and worthless commentary.
…that said, you have moved anything you can to being posted somewhere in tandem riiiiiiight?
how am i supposed to give you a better strategy when you’re just giving the vaguest possible “scenario”.
here’s a good strategy:
don’t support nazi’s.
boycott all nazis.
they make money off advertising to users, by being a user, you are financially supporting nazis… stop it.
pretending like the only possible way to communicate with your desired audience is by supporting nazis is uncreative, ineffective, lazy, and destructive… that reasoning is why places like that continue to exist and grow.