731–740 of 1001 posts
>Our presence on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok is not an endorsement [...] We stay because the people on those platforms deserve access to information, too. We stay because some of our most-read posts are the ones criticizing the very platform we're posting on. We stay because the fewer steps between you and the resources you need to protect yourself, the better. Does this not apply to X users?
Very nice, Twitter/X feels like one of those things we keep doing out of inertia, like using Axios to download in javascript. We used to use it back then because it was a pretty open system, you could famously do analysis on Hashtags, it was even a fad in the scientific community to do sentiment analysis on some topics, twitter was like the Drosophila Melanogaster. The tech stack was very public as well and it had th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was recently at a brown bag at work - regarding enablement of AI in the workplace (it was awesome - all over the roadmap) - and one of the audience asked the speakers (a very diverse group of people) how on earth they keep up with all the developments in AI? All six of the speakers immediately said Twitter was realistically the only place you can keep up with the conversation. Having an extensively curated list mea…
The big issue with this approach is that it will destroy your sanity for things that are often a big bag of hype with nothing underneath. I often find HN to be better because things that get on the front page are vetted beyond 'someone on twitter hyped up a thing'
This is key.
There does seem to be evidence that X (formerly Twitter) is a dying platform, but what surprised me here is that longtime platforms like Snapchat, Reddit and even Pinterest get more MAUs than X - and this is more October 2025: https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-net... It would be really interesting to learn if brands and advertisers are seeing the same thing?
Why is this downvoted? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Since they didn't give the impressions for the other platforms, how can you make this conclusion?
"Last year, our 1,500 posts earned roughly 13 million impressions for the entire year." 13 million impressions? And how much did they pay to reach their audience? I'm absolutely gobsmacked that any organization is willing to walk away from 13 million impressions a year and very interested in know how many impressions/year they get on their top-ten outreach platforms if 13 million impressions/year (presumably for free…
1. Are they spending less to get content promoted?
2. Are they posting links outside of twitter back to twitter less often?
3. Are they linking links to twitter in all their site traffic like they used to?
4. Is their site traffic in general the same as it used to be?
There is no analysis - just flat contextless numbers clearly designed to make it sound like "X is dying, we're taking our ball and going home" in a sour grapes sort of way.
disclaimer: anti elon, very pro-LGTB+, pro-EFF aside from weird political snipes
>Our presence on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok is not an endorsement [...] We stay because the people on those platforms deserve access to information, too. We stay because some of our most-read posts are the ones criticizing the very platform we're posting on. We stay because the fewer steps between you and the resources you need to protect yourself, the better. Does this not apply to X users?
The problem they're not talking about is that for all the X users they could potentially help, their messages will be actively suppressed by the platform owner. Nate Silver, famously popular (...lol) with the online left, made a post about this recently: https://www.natesilver.net/p/social-media-has-become-a-freak... EFF is, politically, left wing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to read their post before commenting. They seem very much aware of the need to reach people who aren't supporters and have always actively engaged with the platforms they are critical of. It's just that X isn't really an effective use of their time anymore.
I read the post. > Last year, our 1,500 posts earned roughly 13 million impressions for the entire year. Their YouTube channel reports 2,759,491 views in total, since 2006. So while X may be a fraction of what it was, it's still a significant multiple of at least one of the other channels they are happy to use. What kind of activist org turns down the opportunity to reach 13 million people for essentially zero cost?…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We posted to Twitter (now known as X) five to ten times a day in 2018. Those tweets garnered somewhere between 50 and 100 million impressions per month. By 2024, our 2,500 X posts generated around 2 million impressions each month. Last year, our 1,500 posts earned roughly 13 million impressions for the entire year. To put it bluntly, an X post today receives less than 3% of the views a single tweet delivered seven…
I hope they ran the numbers and did some cold surveying/analysis/postmortem before deciding that. What is worse is those aren't shitty ad impressions. Interested people will be following maybe even expecting to see them. In addition and ironically also other interested people will be algorithmed in to their orbit. E.g. I read more of a blogger I like because I follow him on LinkedIn over following RSS feed.
But they won't. That isn't how modern social networks work, and X definitely isn't an exception. The chronological feed of people you follow is long gone.
Gross and performative, and I say this as someone who detests X and has never used it... when they were writing this crap they could have instead been writing about the ridiculous operating system user age validation laws.
EFF Launches Age Verification Hub as Resource Against Misguided Laws (December 10, 2025) ~ https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-launches-age-verifica...
I've previously written to the EFF on it with no response.
Astounds me that anyone is still using that platform after seeing how Musk treated the engineers when he took over.