You’re forgetting the (often) free labor used to make changes like this are limited.
I, for example, did not get paid for the 20 hrs/week I was putting into the organization, as I was also a board member, their IT person, and for a couple of periods, board president…
Its a cost/benefit analysis.
Yep, it’s viable now for many orgs…
This is probably much closer to discord than Zulip is, tbh. I never knew about it previously :)
What would be the unlazy, creative, and effective strategy?
BTW, remaining where our community members are is very effective at messaging to the community we need to communicate with…
Better. I’d say its fully on par with Discord, minus the dark patterns. There’s a public Zulip instance where you can check it out.
If we’re swapping out discord, please just go with Zulip… It’s FLOSS, and has a solid company backing it that actually cares about FLOSS (They even bought the product back, after it was sold to a company that was enshittifying it)/
Not really a hypothetical though. Its the very reason I kept a non-profit’s account on twitter, and facebook, and instagram, for as long as I did - Because we HAD to in order to effectively hit the mission for the non profit.
ok, that’s just hilarious :P
The equivalent of IE being the last one to move to the fediverse lol
If I ran an org, that needed to reach a community of say… 1000 people in need, and 900 of those people were ONLY on twitter, guess what?
That org needs to be on twitter, even if President Musk is profiting from it. Otherwise, the org would be remiss in their mission.
Its that social inertia, and I get it.
I ran a neighborhood group’s social media, and even after FB turned openly shitty, I had to stay on there, because thats where people are.
I mean, I could have pushed the org to drop them, but then we would have lost the eyeballs of thousands of neighbor’s we’re trying to work FOR.
Same deal with Twitter, they’ve just gotten to the point where most NPOs lose less by leaving than they would by staying.
If you have evidence of the contrary, I’d be happy to see it.
I’m assuming it’s still as accurate as the data previously showed, and because I’m an active editor there, who works quite hard to ensure what I edit is reliably sourced.
Quite possibly. Depending on how loud and active you are about it.
A shit sandwich and diarrhea soup are different.
But, no matter what, you’re eating shit.
The Nazis built the autobahn, but we don’t cheer for the Nazis.
Like we shouldn’t be cheering on any state, just because of the good.
Yes, I include the US, China, Russia, and all the other states that have committed untold evil on humanity, even if they all also did something good.
How could you achieve communism or socialism without authoritarianism?
Same way the Neozapatistas have done? By actually showing your system is better, and letting people join your movement. And allow them to leave, if they desire.
Are they better, though?
I mean, last I checked, Wikipedia is far more accurate than most encyclopedias professionally assembled. And, to add to it: Wikipedia is certainly well sourced, and admits its biases quite openly, and in fact are working to correct those biases.
So, what Chinese-based wikipedia alternatives are out there? And I mean, communally owned, maintained, and edited encyclopedia, which, quite frankly, is one of the best examples of a communist endeavors one can find on the internet at this time…
I prefer hearing about it from Marxists far closer to the source, and using China’s own information they publish:
https://www.cpiml.net/liberation/2020/08/chinas-concentration-camps-for-uyghurs-in-chinas-own-words
Effective was a requirement.