Przejdź do głównej zawartości

Zbych Galezaudostępnił to.


On Monday, I wrote an essay about climate and biodiversity for Scientific American. I tracked proportional engagement, calculated as (likes + shares + comments)/followers, over six social media platforms.

The winner? MASTODON, by a landslide.

Second place? INSTAGRAM. It's harder to share posts on IG, but lot of people like things there!

The loser? FACEBOOK, also by a landslide.*

* On Facebook, I've been shadow-banned since August 2018 when they listed clean energy and climate as "socially sensitive topics" so my page there stopped growing 6 years ago and now only about 1% of my followers there ever see my posts if the mention climate. It's actually too bad, because that's the platform where I reach the most conservative audiences through their connections to friends and family. So even though it's dead last, I still persist.

** For example, I had a post on FB a few weeks ago that didn't mention climate or clean energy. Its engagement levels were 3.7% which would put it just below Instagram.
Ten wpis został zedytowany (2 lata temu)

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦udostępnił to.

In absolute terms, both Mastodon and Instagram punch above their weight. Twitter and LI are just below. And FB is, no surprise, extremely low.
Bar chart comparing number of followers and total engagement across 6 social media platforms for a post about a Scientific American essay on climate and biodiversity last Monday.

Pandkaudostępnił to.

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦udostępnił to.

I could be wrong obviously, but I would bet that this phenomenon is not isolated to climate activism or even progressive engagement in general.

To make an analogy, Twitter is to social media as TV on in the background while you're doing something you like better is to entertainment.

LinkedIn, at least for me, is more like "I have to be here in case my career goes pear shaped."

Many people came to Mastodon for active engagement rather than obligatory social acceptance.