Dan GillmorDear journalists: Twitter is now the platform of choice for right-wing extremists -- a platform where they are welcomed, promoted, and even in some cases paid by Musk's site.
Why, when there are real alternatives, is it still your site?
Jay 🆘@dangillmor I think, sadly, when it comes to reach, there is no real alternative to Twitter.
There are some cases of Mastodon posts getting more engagement per follower than on Twitter, but I don’t know whether that’s the rule or the exception.
@jsit I have half the followers on Mastodon that I had (in theory still have) on Twitter, but I've had ~10 times the engagement here.
Adding: And it's high-quality engagement, boosts, real conversations, and very little trolling (so far).
Helchose@dangillmor @jsit I've seen a lot of people say that.
Engagement on Threads was great for the first couple days, but it's since dropped off a cliff just like Facebook.
William Hughes@Helchose @dangillmor @jsit don't forget the quality too. With little to no profit motive there's no real benefit to stoking anger and division. Not as much to be gained by artificially inflating fringe hate filled theories (especially in the name of "equal time" or "free speech").
The social networking sites that morphed into "social media" became instigators of division, because division keeps people on the site clicking refresh and posting angry replies (and buying beer and toilet paper from ads).
#Mastodon and #Lemmy don't demand the attention that the Bird Site and Snu Site did. They don't have the bots and trolls, either.
@wdhughes Sure, but if one’s goal as a journalist is just to get eyeballs on one’s writing, then none of this matters.
Bernie The Wordsmith@Helchose @dangillmor @jsit Agree here. The difference in engagement is abysmal. The absence of algorithm