• Naia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 days ago

        The problem is for organizations it’s harder to leave because that is where the people you want to reach are. That’s the only reason any org or company is on social media in the first place. If they leave too soon they risk too many people not seeing the things they send out to the community.

        It’s more an individual thing because so many people just have social inertia and haven’t left since everyone they know is already there. The first to leave have to decide if they want to juggle using another platform to keep connections or cut off connections by abandoning the established platform.

          • ubergeek@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            If I ran an org, that needed to reach a community of say… 1000 people in need, and 900 of those people were ONLY on twitter, guess what?

            That org needs to be on twitter, even if President Musk is profiting from it. Otherwise, the org would be remiss in their mission.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Its that social inertia, and I get it.

      I ran a neighborhood group’s social media, and even after FB turned openly shitty, I had to stay on there, because thats where people are.

      I mean, I could have pushed the org to drop them, but then we would have lost the eyeballs of thousands of neighbor’s we’re trying to work FOR.

      Same deal with Twitter, they’ve just gotten to the point where most NPOs lose less by leaving than they would by staying.