- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I read the article. I didn’t see anything “tricky”. Just a lot of weak excuses.
Literally this. It’s as easy as making a Bluesky account and mass changing all links to it, and putting a permanent banner on their site with their handle.
Or not making the same mistake twice, and opting for something decentralised that your company owns, such as your own Mastodon instance.
Yeah, but then they have to pay someone to maintain it. And low though that cost may be, it’s precisely the sort of thing that C-levels like to cut when they feel like pretending that they actually do something.
It’s a hard thing for a C-level’s ego to set something up that they know someone else is going to cut later, or worse that they might be the one to “have to” cut it.
They have to pay someone to manage the account in the first place. No reason that worker can’t do both.
Typing in a box on a website provided by someone else can be done by practically anyone, even the boss themselves at a pinch. Heck, some of them love doing that.
Maintaining a server (or a service on a server) requires someone with more skills, which generally costs more money.
Some smart entrepreneur could offer a Mastodon-server-in-a-box service, where companies only pay hosting fees for company-name.social and a social network employee.
all cost more than just making an account on established service. The cost of changing from Twitter to whatever is probably smaller than half a year of selfhosting or aaS.
“But if I don’t work with and promote Nazis, I will make less money! How will the Nazis watch my ads?”
It’s hard. You’ll lose all those potential nazi customers. And inbred rednecks, mostly from US southern states.
Of course, the BBC led the way by having it’s own mastodon instance…
Which has been a trial for nearly two years now.
RIP mozilla.social
Not much activity I can see on the accounts I looked at?
On the plus side, the BBC news website is normalising companies wanting to leave. This is a powerful message.
I think brands should stay on X, this way they don’t bother me with their advertisement on my social media.
Corporations with that Nazi fomo
“Do I want to support Nazis?” The answer is no, it’s always no. “No, I do not want to support a Nazi”
“Users protesting by leaving should weigh the broader social implications of staying versus exiting.”
Hmmn, let me weigh up the broader social implications of . . . holocaust, world war, racial purification, hatred and divisiveness. Strangely, I think i can trust the gut on this one without having to do all the complex social cost benefit analysis.
If you were a brand that wanted to be part of any cultural moments that were happening, Twitter was a great place to be
what about fucking don’t. fuck off our culture.
Ah yes the one time Oreos dunked on the Super Bowl.
What is really tricky is that most people that seek top level leadership roles align with fascism.
We just could not leave the NAZI camp the food was just too good. I get it corporations. When the dead bodies start showing up you will just step over them.
“Will you join wheat thins in the fight against lime disease?”
Just stay there! We don’t want you here?
