Comment by spopejoy
2 hours ago
The story behind the numbers they present clearly demonstrates that X is censoring/shadowbanning them. Going from 600MM to 13MM impressions/yr -- losing 98% of their impressions! -- is no accident but clearly Musk's thumb on the scale.
Imagine what this means if you are trying to gauge impact of a post. Remember, X is giving them zero information about who they're preventing from seeing it. Impressions is the main datapoint so if you can't figure out why you've lost 98% of your impact, how on earth are you going to evaluate it vs other platforms?
And yes, each platform has a cost. There's a LOT more to social strategy than just "copy and paste this announce to every platform".
It's not necessarily shadowbanning (although it could well be), given that it's been turned into a cesspit where huge numbers of users left and the ones still there are probably not the demographic that would engage with the EFF, it could just be a natural consequence of Musk's wrecking it.
Same result, either way.
I mean if you look at their Twitter feed, it is just “copy and paste this announce to every platform".
Having run a big account, I can see they’re making a lot of mistakes.
TBH their Twitter is really, really bad. I don’t think Elon Musk personally has to put his finger on any scale. I thought EFF would be his thing too, no?
They still get more engagement on X than on Bluesky.
Also, cross positing the same content on multiple platforms isn’t time consuming.
This is clearly EFF violating their stated commitment to political neutrality, and providing only a superficial and easily discredited rationale for cover.
Do we have to be politically neutral to the abhorrent?
[dead]
> clearly demonstrates that X
No it doesn’t.
> X is giving them zero information about
So it can’t be clearly demonstrated.
Leaving out key parts of a quote is a disingenuous way to attempt to make a counter-argument, especially when the full quote clearly contradicts your second sentence.