JesseCollecting anecdotes, data, and anecdata on people and orgs who’ve left Twitter and found higher engagement from ostensibly fewer followers. This is in preparation for a renewed pitch to the org I’m in, to begin the process of x-trication. Boosts appreciated!
SamuelJohnson@misc Mastodon differs in one key respect that may be persuasive: there's no algorithm foisting contrarian rubbish on people based on things they engaged with historically (in order to engage them some more and sell more ads). It saves time. And time is often money, or peace of mind.
Jon (now at neuromatch.social)@samueljohnson From an activist perspective, the lack of an algorithmic feed isn't necessarily a feature. Most orgs have built skills in manipulating the algorithms -- and orgs with a budget can substitute money for time. It takes a very different approach to be successful on the fediverse, so the kind of proof points
@misc is asking for are crucial to persuading orgs to invest in trying it out.
@misc is asking for are crucial to persuading orgs to invest in trying it out.
@jdp23 @misc Higher engagement (quantitatively assessed) isn't a great metric, though I've seen numerous reports of higher and more meaningful levels of engagement w a smaller audience here.
"Activists" gaming algorithms is what has made monetized social media a toxic hellscape w adverse real world consequences. Moral leadership in giving up that game should count, even w little engagement at first. It's not for everyone ofc.
well @misc there's your answer, silly you for paying attention to stuff like engagement that the org actually cares about, much more effective tell them that they've made social media a toxic hellscape and they should now show moral leadership. Let me know how it goes!