I feel like the EFF’s messaging is just not going to get through to anyone still on Twitter.
The problem is that the fundamental catch-22 of social networks is that the content and the users reinforce each other. Self-hating/regretting Twitter/X users exist, but they are there because there are network effects, including organizations who still also use it, they are not willing to give up. Similar organizations are there because the users are still there. And yes, I do think they still see the people they want because of follows/subscriptions, even if alt-right fascism is also being thrown into their feed by the algorithm.
It sucks so many people haven’t left yet, but that’s why every choice to leave is worth celebrating, because it breaks down the long-term network effects every time, even at the cost of short-term value to the users or orgs.
To illustrate what I mean more clearly, look at the top comments/replies for the NASA Artemis posts, as an example.
…It’s basically all conspiracy theorists, and government skeptics.
Twitter’s focusing the Artemis posts on them because it’s what they want to see, and most engaging for them.
In the EFF’s case, I’m not just talking about Musk’s influence. The algorithm will only show the EFF to users who would be highly engaged by it. E.g., angry skeptics who wouldn’t be swayed by the EFF anyway, or fans who already agree with the EFF. It’s literally not going to show the EFF to people who need to see it, as Twitter’s metrics would show it as unengaging.
This is the “false image” I keep trying to dispel. Twitter is less and less an “even spread” of exposure like people think it is, like it sort of used to be, more-and-more a hyper focused bubble of what you want to hear, and only what you want to hear. All the changes Musk is making are amplifying that. Maybe that’s fine for some orgs, but there’s no point in the EFF staying in that kind of environment, regardless of ethics.
The problem is that the fundamental catch-22 of social networks is that the content and the users reinforce each other. Self-hating/regretting Twitter/X users exist, but they are there because there are network effects, including organizations who still also use it, they are not willing to give up. Similar organizations are there because the users are still there. And yes, I do think they still see the people they want because of follows/subscriptions, even if alt-right fascism is also being thrown into their feed by the algorithm.
It sucks so many people haven’t left yet, but that’s why every choice to leave is worth celebrating, because it breaks down the long-term network effects every time, even at the cost of short-term value to the users or orgs.
To illustrate what I mean more clearly, look at the top comments/replies for the NASA Artemis posts, as an example.
…It’s basically all conspiracy theorists, and government skeptics.
Twitter’s focusing the Artemis posts on them because it’s what they want to see, and most engaging for them.
In the EFF’s case, I’m not just talking about Musk’s influence. The algorithm will only show the EFF to users who would be highly engaged by it. E.g., angry skeptics who wouldn’t be swayed by the EFF anyway, or fans who already agree with the EFF. It’s literally not going to show the EFF to people who need to see it, as Twitter’s metrics would show it as unengaging.
This is the “false image” I keep trying to dispel. Twitter is less and less an “even spread” of exposure like people think it is, like it sort of used to be, more-and-more a hyper focused bubble of what you want to hear, and only what you want to hear. All the changes Musk is making are amplifying that. Maybe that’s fine for some orgs, but there’s no point in the EFF staying in that kind of environment, regardless of ethics.
*and only what Elon Musk wants you to hear.