[ijk]

> We posted to Twitter (now known as X) five to ten times a day in 2018. Those tweets garnered somewhere between 50 and 100 million impressions per month. By 2024, our 2,500 X posts generated around 2 million impressions each month. Last year, our 1,500 posts earned roughly 13 million impressions for the entire year. To put it bluntly, an X post today receives less than 3% of the views a single tweet delivered seven years ago.

Given that social media posts are not free, in the sense that someone or something has to put some effort in to format the message for that particular site, I can see how a simple cost calculation would show that it is no longer worth it.

[WatchDog]

They are posting the same content in virtually identical format to other twitter clones. The whole process can be automated, the marginal cost is nothing.

[mememememememo]

I hope they ran the numbers and did some cold surveying/analysis/postmortem before deciding that.

What is worse is those aren't shitty ad impressions. Interested people will be following maybe even expecting to see them. In addition and ironically also other interested people will be algorithmed in to their orbit.

E.g. I read more of a blogger I like because I follow him on LinkedIn over following RSS feed.

[j2kun]

X suppresses posts from people you follow in favor of algorithmically boosted posts, so at scale the follow counts don't matter as much.

[billyp-rva]

> Interested people will be following maybe even expecting to see them.

But they won't. That isn't how modern social networks work, and X definitely isn't an exception. The chronological feed of people you follow is long gone.

[mememememememo]

That is my point. Who sees them? whatever the algo predicts will engage.