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.
Which post are you looking at? I just posted the numbers for the first post I could find that was the same across X, Bluesky, and Facebook (a little hard since the feeds for all three are different). The X post had 16 times the number of likes as Bluesky and 26 times the number of likes as Facebook. The X post had 17 times the number of comments as Bluesky, 6 times the number as Facebook.
Your post made me randomly spot check another one from a month ago ("The U.S. government on Wednesday..."), the numbers aren't quite as drastic but X is still ahead. Likes/comment shares:
X: 280, 4, 172.
Bluesky: 182, 2, 98.
Because of the algorithms I wouldn't be surprised if you'd be able to cherry pick some Bluesky post that's ahead. But a casual browse through both feeds makes it look like X gets much more engagement.
The people on BlueSky and Mastodon aren't the people they need to convince in the correctness of their message.
If you actually care about getting your point across, hostile environments are exactly the place that you need to be broadcasting. Especially when they haven't put up any barriers for you.
EFF leadership just totally doesn't get it.
Unless the goal isn't what they say it is and they just need the cheerleading squad to make it look like their fundraising is effective.
If an organisation had any serious chance of moving the needle by staying on X, musk would simply find a reason to ban them. X leadership isn't interested in fair and balanced discussion.
An online argument has NEVER EVER EVER changed anyone's mind.
Source: I've argued with strangers on the internet since the mid-90's.
Don't feed the trolls was the rule back then when trolls were just actual people arguing for the sake of getting a reaction - and now the trolls are either a piece of software connected to a language model or paid to argue in bad faith. Like WOPR says: the only winning move is not to play.
This just fundamentally isn't true. What people see online massively influences how they think, to the extent that entire media conglomerates have been bought and sold to do exactly that.
I specifically said "online argument". You talking to someone online, in text format. You can change people's minds in video calls, sometimes. No amount of 1-on-1 online discourse has ever changed anyone's mind on anything.
The general sentiment people observe online definitely changes how they think, it moves the Overton Window considerably. And that's exactly what the bots[0] on Twitter and other platforms like TikTok do, they argue about whatever they get paid to argue for in bad faith, endlessly.
People see this, not knowing it's all artificial, and go "ooh, MANY PEOPLE think like this" and start thinking it's normal to think like that.
[0] I'm using "bot" as shorthand here for bad faith actors, usually the first level is just spamming static canned arguments, stage two is some kind of smart system that responds to the replies somewhat in context and stage three will ping an actual human who will come in with VERY specific deep-cut arguments.
Source: I argue online a lot for fun and relaxation.
So how do you know you've never changed someone's mind? Also, the opposite is just retreating to echo chambers where everyone agrees?
I personally don't care if EFF leaves X. However the message in the article does not line up, it's a bad decision and not justified by the reasons cited.
TBH echo chambers are just fine as long as you know you're in one.
I have peeked outside of my curated chamber and the people in there are completely batshit insane. Like objectively not following any sane logic or reason. And no amount of online discourse will not make them change their ways unless they WANT to change.
If there is an organization who should be promoting federated, decentralized social media services over centralized robber baron engagement factories more than the EFF, I don't know who it would be.
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?
This is on point but someone is taking offense by being called a "weirdo" (thus the down votes, I think). Yes, we are weirdos on alternate social media, just like we are weirdos who use Linux, Emacs, write Lisp, etc.. It's weird, i.e.: Unusual. "Geek" might have been a better term to use though.
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.
Its wild that we've gotten to the point that 'allows tyrants to silence users on their platform' is no longer something we're allowed to dislike without it being a 'political' stance. Some time in the last 30 years acting like a reasonable and decent human being became a political statement.
The reason to leave ex-twitter and the reason to keep using lesser platforms may not be the same reason.
Probably the reason EFF keeps using mastodon/bluesky is not for reach, but to support federated platforms.
As an activist organization EFF needs reach people, but also it needs to show people alternatives to surveillance capitalism exist and encourage their use.
"...and we win by putting our time, skills, and members’ support where they will have the most impact. Right now, that means Bluesky, Mastodon, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube"
So pretty much all major sites except X. They are saying LinkedIn is more important to reach people than X, really?
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.
To answer how it got so big: it didn't start out trying to replace Slack. It just solved an acute pain point for gamers. Skype was becoming increasingly enshittified, and people were floating between TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, and Mumble, none of which were that great. Discord captured the market because it was completely free and had the audio mechanisms in place to make people with shitty mics and background noise tolerable without forcing everyone to use push-to-talk. That’s really it. By the time non-gaming communities were looking for a Slack alternative, they just defaulted to Discord because 90% of their target audience already had the client running in the background.
That is also why I think it "won" over Slack. Discord solved audio comms for gamers, period. It got so good, that SMB and startups started to migrate for stuff like easy pair-programming, open meetings etc.
Discord IMO won because of a killer trio: 1) good comms 2) full history 3) faster UI over bloated Slack.
The model thought for over 5 minutes to produce this. It's not quite photorealistic (some parts are definitely "off"), but this is definitely a significant leap in complexity.
The model thought for over 5 minutes to produce this. It's not quite photorealistic (some parts are definitely "off"), but this is definitely a significant leap in complexity.
I always enjoyed D’Angelo Barksdale’s interpretation from The Wire:
> D’Angelo: "He’s saying that the past is always with us. Where we come from, what we go through, how we go through it—all that shit matters. Like at the end of the book, you know, boats and tides and all. It’s like you can change up, right? You can say you’re somebody new, you can give yourself a whole new story. But, what came first is who you really are, and what happened before is what really happened.
> And it don’t matter that some fool say he different ’cause the only thing that make him different is that he say it. But it ain’t the truth. Gatsby, he was who he was, and he did what he did. And because he wasn't willing to get real with the story, it caught up to him."
> Inmate: "So you're saying he couldn't get over?"
> D’Angelo: "No, I’m saying he was who he was. They found him out. They found him out in the end. And that’s what it is. You can’t get over. You can’t even get out."
In one of the first seasons there was a kid that was a witness to a murder.
He got out of the city and was living with relatives in the countryside, he was safe.
I didn't understand why, but he came back to Baltimore and ended up getting killed. He could have just stayed where he was and lived out his life in peace.
This forum discusses information freedom pretty much all day every day. Now we have a real world example of suppression of information in the US which is rather rare and people (see comments) using technology to evade it.
why do you think it's because of trump supporters, I'm curious if you have evidence of trump affiliated suppression on HN (notwithstanding the actual segment which could certainly be said to be trump suppressed) - maybe people just don't want politics on here. in any case there's one: Cecot – 60 Minutes (archive.org), on the front page anyway.
Obviously, nobody but the HN admins/mods know about flagging or voting patterns, and they don't talk about the details when these kinds of events happen. The most you'll hear is "We looked at it and manually removed the flags." So, it is impossible to provide the evidence you are asking for.
You see this here with other topics, too, not just things some people dismiss as "political". Submit any article that criticizes a certain multi-company tech CEO and it will be instantly flagged off the main page.
so you don't know but you keep saying it's because of pro trumpers...? why spread misinformation. you could just say that it keeps getting flagged without lying.
We cant know for sure, because unlike dang we cannot correlate the flags. However, there is something called circumstantial evidence, which can even hold up in court.
You went from curious to accusation of misinformation and lying in just two comments. Thats concerning.
Since we are talking about circumstantial evidence, lets bring alternative theories to the table so that we know we are not excluding other explanations for the same data.
People who are afraid that they will get attacked if their views do not conform to the majority are more likely to flag an article and move on rather than engage with the discussion. Articles do not require 50% of the participants to flag it in order for it to get flagged, thus this minority will cause articles to get flagged. The more hostile the community get to dissenting opinions, the more articles get flagged, with the most heated topics getting the majority of flagging.
When a certain type of political commenting keeps getting repeatedly flagged, in this case things about oligarchs or conservatives who might have made mistakes and did bad things, it's pretty clear that it's probably conservatives who are complaining about it.
Yes, argue against unsubstantiated bias with more unsubstantiated bias. Anyone who knows about the high percentage of educated immigrants in the tech sector and who knows the historical importance of immigrants to American innovation could easily find this highly relevant, especially the historical high ratio of successful immigrant founders in SV itself including a couple of white South Africans that come to mind -- at least one of which who seems to have had a less than by-the-book immigrant status and could have been deported in today's climate if someone wished it to be so.
The UK leaving the EU is one
of the highest ranked stories on this site for similar reasons no doubt.
