Second, companies in this increasingly autocratic and hostile US control every major digital platform that Europeans use to debate and share news, with the exception of TikTok, which is Chinese. Even Europe’s news organisations rely on Google and other US advertising technology companies for online revenue. Trump can humiliate or cripple the oligarchs who control these companies.

  • Tad Lispy@lemm.eeOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Then it’s important to identify the reason it doesn’t take off. Is it inherent to fediverse (in which case we would indeed need a new platform) or is it external. For example proprietary platforms have marketing and lobbying.

    • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      i have no idea how politicians got to proprietary platforms. maybe consultans recommended it.

      from work, i know, the company i work at has limited budget for social media and chose three platforms by guesstimated number of users in our country. they use some software that posts on multiple platforms at once.

      • eskimofry@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        maybe: The social media company pays the politicians or acquiesces to removal of critical posts?

      • Tad Lispy@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s probably the same for politicians. They are looking for widest reach. It’s not only about posting. To be effective, they need to moderate and engage with comments, which is harder to automate. Also, they might just not know about fediverse platforms (lack of marketing). In that case the solution would be to promote fediverse among users, European business, organizations and politicians.