Except they don't see it as "drowning." They see it as using one more corporate owned and controlled fact of life; like their ISPs, cable companies, streaming services, public utilities, airlines, railroads, and toll roads. It sucks, but it's the capitalism conundrum. Many hate it conceptualy, but love what it brings to them. If we expect them to give that up, they will need to get at most of what they knew before. Right now, they aren't seeing that. But it's still early.
@shoq @izstranger @rlux No, it *was* corporate-owned. That was something many of us could deal with too. Corporations can be shamed and influenced.
Now, however, it's lunatic-owned.
Also: a person who clings to a sinking ship will drown whether they feel like they're drowning or not.
@shoq You're assuming that everyone on the Fediverse agrees that the goal is to get those 120 million people here.
I only want about 100 of them. There are several million that I'm actively happy *aren't* on the Fediverse.
But to reply to the core of your argument: I don't think there's any cheese that will convince the mice to come. All we can do is provide a comfy landing place for when the other side turns them off enough.
@LouisIngenthron I'm sorry, but that's just complete bullshit. I brought thousands to Twitter once, and have brought thousands here. There are many more to go, but don't think they can't be reached. Many of us are reaching them every day. You can't claim with any authortity that you know the problems if you are not actively trying to do that. It doesn't sounds like you are.
@shoq I don't have the kind of following necessary to do so, no.
But you're welcome to check my profile on Twitter to see what I did. It's the same handle as here.
If this is your idea of making an effort to persuade people to leave Twitter, I'm not surprised you haven't had much success :)
@shoq As I said, my goal is to provide an exit lane for those who are fed up, not try to convince those who wish to stay.
@LouisIngenthron But those ready to go have already found places to go. But they're choosing bad places to go like Post or that Spoutible grift. So merely providing an "exit lane" is obviously not enough.We have to help them understand why this is a much better solution. It won't be easy for quick.
Whether owned by a lunatic or now, it's still a comany, with a company's priorities. That's the point. @CNN, @HBO, Warner Brothers, Discovery, and dozens of other properties we all use is also now owned by a right-wing hegemon (and some say lunatic). Our captialism problem is way bigger than just Twitter. We need to find new approaches to help more people realize that, and having a safe socal media space they can migrate to would help a lot. But we haven't fully created that yet. It's a WIP.
@shoq The difference is that those other companies care about profit most because they have stockholders to please. That makes them malleable to public opinion.
Twitter is under no such restriction, as evidenced by its exodus of advertisers due to inviting right-wing nutjobs and despots onto its platform. As a private company, there's nothing stopping Musk from burning his $44 billion to the ground.
:Like many, you seem to feel that stating and restating the obvious is somehow helpfu to the debate. We all know what is wrong with Twitter. The issue is how can a few million active fediverse users (generously speaking) convince 120 million active Twitter users that we have a better mousetrap, if only the mice would come and check it out. Posturing like smug, holy war ex-smokers trying to shame the mice into coming to the light simply won't work.