Using 3rd Party Social Media

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: community@snowdrift.coop
  • forum: community.snowdrift.coop
  • blog: blog.snowdrift.coop
  • chat: #snowdrift:matrix.org (#snowdrift:freenode.net)
  • microblog: @snowdrift@snowdrift.coop

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!

3 Likes