Hacker News Reader

Comment by runako | Hacker News Reader

Some context.

Worth keeping in mind that Twitter/X is something like the 8th largest US-based social media site. Like it's ~1/6 the size of Facebook.

It's in all probability smaller than Pinterest (we cannot get trustworthy numbers from Twitter/X). LinkedIn is 2x its size, and real people across a swath of society use it. Knocking Threads for the Instagram distribution is silly because part of the point of posting is to get distribution. This is a PLUS for Threads, which organically is still close to Twitter/X's size.

Nobody is saying it's urgent for brands to be on Quora, a close size mate.

Of these sites, Twitter/X is the only one that (effectively) requires brands to pay to post.

View on HN

BlueSky and Mastodon are much smaller than Twitter/X, and they're staying on the platforms, so this is a moot point.

Smaller platforms with more engagement? Entirely possible they reach more people on those platforms.

In any case, my point was more about the silly idea that it's imperative for any organization to be on the 8th-largest US site.

BlueSky and Mastodon are both open platforms designed around the ideals of digital freedom and control of your own data and feed. It makes perfect sense for the EFF to remain on platforms which are aligned with their goals. This is like criticizing them for dropping Microsoft Word but still using Libre Office.

Sure, but Facebook and TikTok are not "open platforms designed around the ideals of digital freedom and control of your own data and feed."

This makes absolutely no sense because EFF is staying on those platforms, so this point is also moot.

It's almost like there's an ulterior motive at play...

> It's almost like there's an ulterior motive at play...

If you actually read the article you would see the entire section they dedicated to addressing exactly this complaint. But then you wouldn't be able to whine about it here in good faith, would you?

>If you actually read the article you would see the entire section they dedicated to addressing exactly this complaint.

If you actually understood the section in question you would see it doesn't explain in any coherent manner why they're sticking with Facebook but not Twitter. But if you understood it then you wouldn't be able to whine about it here in good faith, would you?

Not surprised he didn't respond. Facts get in the way of narratives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com