Hi All, a conversation came up in today’s meeting that we wanted to move here for further discussion/feedback.
Basically, the question is whether we should create a presence on 3rd party “silo” social media accounts (e.g. FB, IG, Twitter, etc.)
Right now, our primary (yet fairly inactive) social spaces are:
- email: firstname.lastname@example.org
- forum: community.snowdrift.coop
- blog: blog.snowdrift.coop
- chat: #snowdrift:matrix.org (#snowdrift:freenode.net)
- microblog: @email@example.com
We also have @SnowdriftCoop on Twitter and an empty /r/Snowdriftcoop.
More relevant information:
Below is a reduced form of our discussion which can be used as a starting point for the conversation here.
- We have been unofficially boycotting Facebook and it’s holdings, not saying we should stick to nothing, also not sure if we should have anything on Google.
- On the topic of an unofficial boycott, there might be value in having a page about it.
- May be good to have placeholders, may even generate momentum
- Is this being open, even temporarily, to things that go against our core philosophy?
- No to FB and similar social channels, we should lead by example.
- Undecided about best strategy, personally I use it for groups/professional connection and discourage personal connection.
- Can we figure out how to have minimal exposure? I hate the social pressure/lock-in.
- There are concerns about FB blackholing posts and other information.
- We would want to maintain values of Snowdrift, not create content of value to stay there.
- Accessing the walled garden makes sense to introduce people to Snowdrift (who might not otherwise have yet heard of the project).
- However, there’s also the optics of enabling people to stay locked-in there, or encouraging any more FB-exclusive activity
- Leaning towards usage of a placeholder, disallow further conversations and instead reference forum, etc.
- Value in posting to a placeholder in an IndieWeb type situation might be useful.
- Don’t want people to be posting in the walled garden, but want people in the walled garden to be aware of the walled garden.
- FB has algorithym for burying posts that are pushing people to leave FB even via external links
- People who are buried in their own ‘newsfeeds’ potentially won’t see Snowdrift posts anyway
- Instead of just having placeholder/shadow account, we could promote accurate information to negate misinformation, but skeptical if we’ll even be found by others on FB unless we go viral.
- What’s the point of saying we’re here to be here, but we’re not really here?
- If there’s not a way of stopping conversations happening on FB, not a good placeholder.
- We need to weigh potential benefits, could be confusing to people understanding what we are about, because on the face of it looks contradictory.
- We don’t have a Twitter to have a Twitter, we use it to direct people to Mastodon / Social.coop. Content doesn’t get posted there, it gets referenced.
- People may discuss Snowdrift out of context if we don’t have a presence there, not sure how much we can influence even if we did have a presence.
- Being able to reach people in the walled garden is possible benefit as opposed to preaching to the choir.
- From a pragmatic view, if we have limited time/outreach bandwidth, we might want to focus on a smaller number of communication channels where we’ll have the most impact. Maybe FB won’t be one of those channels at this time.
- In building the team, we want to find people who already have some understanding.
- Should we be explicitly negative (adversarial) about FB?
Hope to hear a bunch of opinions before moving forward on this!