> We'll Keep Fighting. Just Not on X

Yeah, somewhere where regular people that aren't terminally online won't ever have the chance to see it. This is a dumb decision. I'd very much like for open, distributed social networks to win, but that's not a reality we'll be living in anytime soon. X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media.

▲

supern0va 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>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.

▲

SirMaster 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

takoid 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

lynndotpy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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?

▲

VHRanger 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

Rover222 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Retreating into smaller and smaller echo chambers where they get their way?

	▲	nerevarthelame 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

hrimfaxi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does it have to be either/or?

▲

philistine 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Volunteer your time to do a dual strategy with content that fits both. Comms takes time, the EFF is adapting its comm strategy.

	▲	an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

nerevarthelame 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

archagon 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, perhaps it's time to reconsider your perception of Bluesky and Mastodon.

▲

rconti 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nobody who's not terminally online ever used Twitter.

	▲	cosmic_cheese 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I was about to say, Twitter has long been one of the largest collections of terminally online people and that's only gotten worse as various groups have abandoned the platform and social media as a whole has seen a decline. Most people who have a life spend their time elsewhere on the web or don't participate in social media at all.

▲

ethersteeds 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do regular people that aren't terminally online use X? I don't know any.

	▲	mghackerlady 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		not anymore. People are acting like they're leaving everything and moving to bluesky or fedi when in reality they already exist there and many other places and are simply leaving the braindead one

▲

stephen_g 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I stoped using Twitter (around when it was changing to be X) because 60-70% of the accounts I cared about left the platform. More and more people will look elsewhere as more organisations and people who aren’t into Musk’s politics leave.

▲

mayneack 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Half this post is about how few people they're reaching on X.

▲

jeltz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The few people who were not terminally online left Twitter around the time it was renamed.

▲

FireInsight 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Yeah, somewhere where regular people that aren't terminally online won't ever have the chance to see it.

Honestly the first time I read this I thought you meant to say "will have the chance", because I don't know of any normal people that used Xitter in years. Most are now just on Instagram. Then again, my generation and geographical locatin might have something to do with that.

▲

lynndotpy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> X, for better or worse, gets you eyes, more so than any other alternative social media.

This is not true at all, and it's a silly statement. X isn't mainstream anymore, and the people who think it is are simply stuck in a bubble. I suspect you might be one of the "terminally online people" you're denigrating as not "regular people".

X's MAU is in the ballpark as Quora or Pinterest. "Pinterest gets you more eyes than any alternative social media" is a more defensible statement.

It's not even in the top 10. It's not 2010 any more, people are on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube.

If you read the rest of the post, they cite Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok (which have 6x to 3x as many users), and they cite that their posts on X are getting only 3% the engagement they saw in 2018.

By their numbers, they are not getting "eyes" on X. Just to compare, their X post has 124 comments, 79 reblogs, and 337 likes, while their BlueSky post has 245 comments, 1400 reblogs, and 6.2K likes. Even their Mastodon post is getting more engagement than on X.

That's over 15x better ROI posting to BlueSky than on X.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

anigbrowl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not if you're shadowbanned

▲

empath75 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Yeah, somewhere where regular people that aren't terminally online won't ever have the chance to see it.

You think those people are on X?

▲