• ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s beginning to wane. The fewer major posters there are, the fewer people will look to the site for information. And the fewer people on there looking for info…etc.

      • bufalo1973@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The answer (IMO) is to open another channel and announce it so people can migrate. And start using more the other channels, using each time FB/X a little less, until (almost) everyone has left FB/X.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          You’re forgetting the (often) free labor used to make changes like this are limited.

          I, for example, did not get paid for the 20 hrs/week I was putting into the organization, as I was also a board member, their IT person, and for a couple of periods, board president…

          Its a cost/benefit analysis.