Oddbean new post about login | logout @9b8b69f4 Financial benefits. There are 350 million users, and as far as microblogging platforms go, there is nothing like it. Plus, most don't care about the Nazis. Not even ADL.
@6b43cb18 @9b8b69f4 It’s not the monetizable web traffic (which it doesn’t generate), so it must be sunk cost, ego, and motivated reasoning.
@26756ccf @9b8b69f4 Pretty sure Apple wouldn't increase its ad spending if it wasn't profitable. NYT, WaPo, WSJ and their journalists thrive. There are authors who 9n Mastodon say they lose bucks. Musk makes a lot more from the autocrats he partners with. Not money but favors.
@6b43cb18 @9b8b69f4 From a marketing perspective, I’m stumped in terms of ad dollar ROI: the overall budget of Apple and Disney must be so gargantuan that the amount spent on Twitter doesn’t get interrogated by Finance. Journalists “thriving” is an interesting characterization. If thriving means having narcissistic needs met. I can see artists and creators with sunk cost. The lack of algorithmic recommender and source of web traffic for analytics are a (current) product flaw of Mastodon.
@6b43cb18 Those three are all major newspapers -- this is merely a social media. Social media don't pay salaries.
@9b8b69f4 No, but they generate income for many, including journos. Directly or indirectly. A platform that is ad-free and not commerce-friendly leaves many with indirect means. For example, get people to look at your Substack, and then hopefully get them to subscribe. Quite onerous. And the fewer users makes it harder.