It pisses me off how twitter went to fuck. People cried that we need something not owned by some rich cunt. We told everyone to join mastodon so that wouldn’t happen again.
What did people do? Wait for another rich cunt (mark suckerberg) to start a clone and the original creator of twitter to make another one and join that…
Kind of unrelated, but a parallel I experienced recently.
Yesterday I was annoyed by SplitWise. We had a small trip over the weekend and were adding expenses to it, and it turns out that there’s now a limit to how many entries you can put in per day. Even with ads. So we decided to find another platform, and a friend suggested another closed product which is probably gonna get as shitty as SplitWise soon. Anyway, I was able to convince them to use Spliit instead. If the hosted service goes to shit, at least I can self host it and keep all the data.
…but these people just use it as a way of talking to the media. As long as people of power and influence shift, so will the press, and then so will everyone else.
Home many times do you hear “Trump, on his platform truth.social, said…”? They’ve gone there because he’s gone there.
Makes me curious if you get more attention on mastodon though. Like if I pitched something on Lemmy there’s a good chance I get the same number of eye balls compared to Reddit, not counting ads. (Although if Kamala posted about Linux and/or Star Trek that’s front page, no ad money needed! Lol)
Yeah but because Wikipedia articles, to an extent, ephemeral it is good practise to use the sources at the bottom of the article as your source, rather than the Wikipedia article itself. It makes finding the origin of the information easier.
If it is something more permanent like a paper or a published article, then that doesn’t suffer from the same issues
Nice graphic! But this data seems wildly out of date. For example, LinkedIn has over 1 billion users. Unless this is referring to weekly active users or something, but the row just says “users”.
Why don’t they use mastodon also?
:(
(Note, Nov ‘23)
It pisses me off how twitter went to fuck. People cried that we need something not owned by some rich cunt. We told everyone to join mastodon so that wouldn’t happen again. What did people do? Wait for another rich cunt (mark suckerberg) to start a clone and the original creator of twitter to make another one and join that…
People are dumb as shit… I’m sick of it.
Yeah, I don’t get it.
Kind of unrelated, but a parallel I experienced recently.
Yesterday I was annoyed by SplitWise. We had a small trip over the weekend and were adding expenses to it, and it turns out that there’s now a limit to how many entries you can put in per day. Even with ads. So we decided to find another platform, and a friend suggested another closed product which is probably gonna get as shitty as SplitWise soon. Anyway, I was able to convince them to use Spliit instead. If the hosted service goes to shit, at least I can self host it and keep all the data.
Glad you were able to convince them :) I love self hosting stuff. I like having control.
What I’m saying is that on twitter they could promote the mastodon account
Musk started removing links and even references to Mastodon from Twitter.
If a high profile politician (particularly one Elon disagrees with) promoted Mastodon, they’d have an account ban lickety split.
…but these people just use it as a way of talking to the media. As long as people of power and influence shift, so will the press, and then so will everyone else.
Home many times do you hear “Trump, on his platform truth.social, said…”? They’ve gone there because he’s gone there.
Makes me curious if you get more attention on mastodon though. Like if I pitched something on Lemmy there’s a good chance I get the same number of eye balls compared to Reddit, not counting ads. (Although if Kamala posted about Linux and/or Star Trek that’s front page, no ad money needed! Lol)
in november of 23, i had a client that let me schedule mastodon posts. this was not made by someone who uses mastodon.
deleted by creator
We’re not doing a research paper. We’re commenting on a internet post. Calm down.
But wikipedia has sources on the bottom of an article so you can verify things?
Yeah but because Wikipedia articles, to an extent, ephemeral it is good practise to use the sources at the bottom of the article as your source, rather than the Wikipedia article itself. It makes finding the origin of the information easier.
If it is something more permanent like a paper or a published article, then that doesn’t suffer from the same issues
Found my English teacher
You can argue the veracity of looking the user count of the platforms on wikipedia, but it is a source.
Nice graphic! But this data seems wildly out of date. For example, LinkedIn has over 1 billion users. Unless this is referring to weekly active users or something, but the row just says “users”.
The EU has an instance
It’s not about the campaigns not using Mastodon, it is about the voters. They are on Twitter still so that is where the campaign wants to meet them.
Mastodon needs to be more widely known for that to be a realistic option.