when posts like this get flagged, but posts on the opposite side of the political spectrum don't, it really discourages people from posting. This seems like a valid critique of the content of the article that was posted whether you agree with it or not.
I enjoyed the article. And it gave me a different perspective about how sometimes you have to go to where the people are to get your message out to people that they should leave.
It's funny that the (seemingly) right leaning people in this thread are criticizing the EFF for leaving Twitter while also simultaneously saying they will leave HN for the exact same reason, just "on the opposite side of the political spectrum".
You clearly didn't read the article closely enough. The first header is "The Numbers Aren’t Working Out." If it was about the audience, they would have switched stopped earlier.
I read it, so don't talk down to me. The numbers are worse on other platforms that they use. And if it were just about the numbers, the article would just be about that.
I agree with you. It's clear that they're leaving X because "X bad", but they don't want to say it that way. I don't know if X is or isn't bad, but it seems pretty mainstream and a good representation of a lot of society, both US and international, so for an org that apparently cares for the online rights of people, it feels silly to leave a platform where there are - people. (and this is coming from someone who doesn't use X or social media in general)
when posts like this get flagged, but posts on the opposite side of the political spectrum don't, it really discourages people from posting. This seems like a valid critique of the content of the article that was posted whether you agree with it or not.
Well, I'm not discouraged at least. The entire article probably shouldn't even be on HN so whatever
I enjoyed the article. And it gave me a different perspective about how sometimes you have to go to where the people are to get your message out to people that they should leave.
I for one, was happy the article was on HN.
> This seems like a valid critique of the content of the article
No it was not.
The EFF clearly stated the main reason the left X/Twitter is that it no longer works for them as a way to reach out. To anybody.
Nothing to do with the politics of those they were reaching.
It's funny that the (seemingly) right leaning people in this thread are criticizing the EFF for leaving Twitter while also simultaneously saying they will leave HN for the exact same reason, just "on the opposite side of the political spectrum".
You don’t see a difference between an organization and an individual?
1 reply →
You clearly didn't read the article closely enough. The first header is "The Numbers Aren’t Working Out." If it was about the audience, they would have switched stopped earlier.
Those numbers are the real news here - that's a brutal drop in traffic. Are other organisations seeing the same?
I read it, so don't talk down to me. The numbers are worse on other platforms that they use. And if it were just about the numbers, the article would just be about that.
I agree with you. It's clear that they're leaving X because "X bad", but they don't want to say it that way. I don't know if X is or isn't bad, but it seems pretty mainstream and a good representation of a lot of society, both US and international, so for an org that apparently cares for the online rights of people, it feels silly to leave a platform where there are - people. (and this is coming from someone who doesn't use X or social media in general)
1 reply →
[flagged]
1 reply →
[dead]
[dead]