←back to thread

244 points Jimmc414 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.442s | source
Show context
dagurp ◴[] No.42130399[source]
But why haven't they posted on Mastodon in two years https://mstdn.social/@TheGuardian
replies(2): >>42130502 #>>42130516 #
EarlKing ◴[] No.42130502[source]
Because Mastodon and the entire Fediverse is infested with the most rabid sort of users that even Twitter couldn't stomach and has turned a blind eye to this fact? I mean, there's a reason why they keep getting brought up over and over and people continually nope out of signing up over there. They've got a demographic problem, they refuse to acknowledge it, and it's killing growth. Why would any media outlet want to participate knowing that?
replies(3): >>42130581 #>>42130640 #>>42131101 #
talldayo ◴[] No.42130640[source]
> Why would any media outlet want to participate knowing that?

Presumably for the same reason they find the optics of X acceptable but what do I know.

replies(1): >>42131614 #
EarlKing ◴[] No.42131614[source]
Pretty sure there's a massive difference in both the breadth and scope of the demographics of X and Mastodon/the Fediverse.
replies(1): >>42149090 #
1. talldayo ◴[] No.42149090[source]
Are the Nazis more or less courteous on X? I'm not sure which distinction you're trying to make here.
replies(1): >>42191515 #
2. EarlKing ◴[] No.42191515[source]
If you think everyone on X is a "nazi" then clearly you've got problems. Twitter appeals to a massive audience, whereas alternatives do not. Media outlets will go where the eyeballs are... and that's not to Bluesky, to Mastodon, to the Fediverse... but to Twitter... which is populated by people, not nazis.