A lot of people threaten to leave Twitter. Not many of them have actually done it.

This was true even before Elon Musk’s purchase of the platform a year ago. But the parade of calamities since — cutting back on moderation, unplugging servers, reinstating banned accounts, replacing verified check marks with paid subscription badges, throttling access to news sites, blaming the Anti-Defamation League for a decline in advertising — has made stepping away more appealing, either because the timeline is toxic or because the site simply doesn’t function the way it used to.

Last April, the company gave NPR a reason to quit — it labeled the network “U.S. state-affiliated media,” a designation that was at odds with Twitter’s own definition of the term. NPR stopped posting from its account on April 4. A week later, it posted its last update — a series of tweets directing users to NPR’s newsletters, app, and other social media accounts. Many member stations across the country, including KUOW in Seattle, LAist in Los Angeles, and Minnesota Public Radio, followed suit.

Six months later, we can see that the effects of leaving Twitter have been negligible. A memo circulated to NPR staff says traffic has dropped by only a single percentage point as a result of leaving Twitter, now officially renamed X, though traffic from the platform was small already and accounted for just under two percent of traffic before the posting stopped. (NPR declined an interview request but shared the memo and other information). While NPR’s main account had 8.7 million followers and the politics account had just under three million, “the platform’s algorithm updates made it increasingly challenging to reach active users; you often saw a near-immediate drop-off in engagement after tweeting and users rarely left the platform,” the memo says.

There’s one view of these numbers that confirms what many of us in news have long suspected — that Twitter wasn’t worth the effort, at least in terms of traffic. “It made up so little of our web traffic, such a marginal amount,” says Gabe Rosenberg, audience editor for KCUR in Kansas City, which stopped posting to Twitter at the same time as NPR. But Twitter wasn’t just about clicks. Posting was table stakes for building reputation and credibility, either as a news outlet or as an individual journalist. To be on Twitter was to be part of a conversation, and that conversation could inform stories or supply sources. During protests, especially, Twitter was an indispensable tool for following organizers and on-the-ground developments, as well as for communicating to the wider public. This kind of connection is hard to give up, but it’s not impossible to replace.

The week after NPR and KCUR left Twitter, the Ralph Yarl shooting happened in Kansas City. Rosenberg says it was “painful” to stay off Twitter as the story unfolded. “We had just taken away one of our big avenues for getting out information, especially in a breaking news situation — a shooting, one that deals with a lot of really thorny issues of racism and police and the justice system. And a lot of that conversation was happening on Twitter,” Rosenberg says. Instead of rejoining Twitter, KCUR set up a live blog and focused on posting to other social networks. NPR’s editors worked with the station to refine SEO and help spread the story. Even though the station itself wasn’t posting to Twitter, Rosenberg says the story found an audience anyway because very engaged local Twitter users shared the piece with their networks. And while the station informed these users through its website, it also reached new users on Instagram, where Rosenberg says KCUR has “tripled down” its engagement efforts.

On Instagram, KCUR’s strategy is less about driving clicks and more about sharing information within the app. “Instagram doesn’t drive traffic, but frankly neither did Twitter,” Rosenberg says. NPR, meanwhile, has been experimenting with Threads, a new app built by Instagram that launched in July, where NPR is among the most-followed news accounts. Threads delivers about 63,000 site visits a week — about 39 percent of what Twitter provided. But NPR’s memo notes that clicks aren’t necessarily the priority, and the network is “taking advantage of the expanded character limit to deliver news natively on-platform to grow audiences — with enough information for a reader to choose whether to click through.”

NPR posts less to Threads than it did to Twitter, and the team spends about half as much time on the new platform as it did on the old. Danielle Nett, an editor with NPR’s engagement team, writes in the staff memo that spending less time on Twitter has helped with staff burnout. “That’s both due to the lower manual lift — and because the audience on Threads is seemingly more welcoming to publishers than on platforms like Twitter and Reddit, where snark and contrarianism reign,” Nett writes.

These strategies move publishers further away from seeing social media as a source of clicks. This could be a risky pivot away from traffic sources, given that NPR and many member stations have laid off staff or made other cuts due to declining revenues. But the social media clickthrough audience has never been guaranteed; a Facebook algorithm change this year also tanked traffic to news sites. Instead, recognizing that social media is not a key to clicks seems like a correction to years of chasing traffic through outside platforms.

There were signs of social media’s waning importance before the Twitter sale as well as predictions that the era of social media-driven news is coming to an end. But changes to X in the last year have only accelerated these trends, underlining that social media is less rewarding to publishers and less fun for users than it used to be. “The quality of our engagement on the platform was also suffering” before April, Nett wrote in a followup email. “We were on average seeing fewer impressions and smaller reach on our tweets, despite keeping a similar publishing cadence. And I know this is anecdotal, but as someone looking at the account every day, spam replies were getting much more frequent — starting to overpower meaningful feedback and conversation from audiences.” Musk’s now-retracted relabeling of NPR could be seen as a last straw, or as an open door to leave a platform that had lost its utility.

By many estimates, active daily users on Twitter/X are in decline. Not everyone who leaves does it like NPR, in a flurry of headlines and with a final post pinned to their timeline. Instead, it’s more mundane. They check less and less often, finding it less useful, less compelling. It’s not easy to decide to back away; there’s still a fear about leaving — a fear of missing out on a great conversation or a new joke. But as a platform becomes less reliable — either editorially or technically — staying becomes more fraught. And as NPR has demonstrated, you may not be giving up all that much if you walk away.

  • Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    146
    ·
    1 year ago

    NPR is state affiliated. I agree that twitter is a waste of time but Twitters actions weren’t off base

            • ringwraithfish@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Twitter’s definition of state-affiliated:

              How state-affiliated media accounts are defined

              State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled. We will also add labels to posts that share links to state-affiliated media websites.

              Conspiracy theories aside, AFAIK there’s no evidence that any level of the US government exercises control over NPR.

          • Possibly linux
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            34
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the problem for me. If they are receiving any state funding they need to report facts as unbiased as possible

        • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was founded by Congress but is independent and funds itself. You know this but spread misinformation anyway.

        • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “Established by an act” doesn’t mean the same thing as “maintained by Congress.” If your argument were true, NPR wouldn’t be able to operate during government shutdowns, since they’d be federal employees. Given they reported during previous shutdowns, that indicates to me that they’re not run by Congress.

    • Zellith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      How state-affiliated media accounts are defined on Twitter.

      State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled. We will also add labels to posts that share links to state-affiliated media websites.

      https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/government-media-labels

    • Cylusthevirus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      Literally less than 1% of revenue comes from government grants, but it’s “state affiliated.” By that reasoning a whole host of things are state affiliated.

        • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think you’re right… Doesn’t SpaceX get a bunch of US government money? I just watched an Ordinary Things video on how much space rubbish there is and spacex is like… the main contributor.

          Edit; I could be wrong but I think he mentioned the gubment gives spaceseX money

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably based on the tax dodging that huge corporations do, X should classify itself as state affiliated, because we taxpayers are essentially subsidizing companies like that.

    • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      1% revenue support from Government is “state affiliated”? In that case every single media outlet is state affiliated by virtue of their tax breaks.

      • VonReposti@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        And every single Danish media outlet would be “state affiliated” due to the state media fund.

        • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, then every American who gets grants, welfare, or discounted education. Funding is funding. If you think 1% equals communism, or crushes integrity, there is no hope for you.

      • Possibly linux
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        If NPR wasn’t affiliated with the government they would be willing to stop receiving funding.

        • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reject and return all tax breaks, deductions or rebates - or you are affiliated with them and thus are impossible to trust. Oh, and return the government money you accepted for public secondary education. You government shill!

    • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      NPR is not state affiliated. They were created by a Congressional charter yes but so were the Boy Scouts and the American Red Cross and they aren’t state owned or affiliated.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re just straight up wrong my man. Factually. You have the facts wrong. Whatever you believe here that you think makes you right, is in fact, 100%, provably, wrong. As others replying to you have pointed out and used references.

    • papertowels@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The most “ACKSHUALLY” take, lmao.

      Hey you know what, if you pay taxes, you’re state affiliated.

      Similarly, all individuals who receive government benefits are clearly state affiliated.

      Thankfully, someone else has already shared and sourced twitters working definition of “state affiliated”, and we can see that NPR clearly doesn’t fall under that. Looking forward to seeing your response to that comment.

        • ZeroCool@feddit.chOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          westernjournal(dot)com is not a credible source.

          https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/western-journalism/

          QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

          A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

          Overall, we rate Western Journal Right Biased and Questionable based on story selection and editorial opinions that strongly favor the right and numerous failed fact checks.

          Questionable Reasoning: Far Right, Failed Fact Checks, Propaganda, Conspiracy
          Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
          Factual Reporting: MIXED
          Country: USA
          Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
          Media Type: Website
          Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
          MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

          Analysis / Bias

          The Western Journal is a news and opinion website with a story selection that always favors the right and is negative toward the left. There is the frequent use of moderately loaded language in headlines such as this: The Clinton State Department’s Major Security Breach That Everyone Is Ignoring. The Western Journal typically sources its information from credible media outlets, though story selection and wording usually spin information favorably to the right. They have also failed several fact checks.

          Finally, during the 2020 Presidential election, they have promoted misinformation. They also consistently promote misinformation regarding Covid-19 and vaccines. See failed fact check below.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’ve seen it many times over the years and they always seem to have done their homework. Why do you want to believe it’s not credible?

              • ZeroCool@feddit.chOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Why do you want to believe it’s not credible?

                You answered your own question with that phrasing. They don’t have any evidence, if they did they would’ve posted it already, they just want to believe it isn’t.

            • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They’re generally good at sniffing out right wing sources. Where they fuck up is with leftist media because they use a flawed political model that conflates communism and liberalism even though they’re dialectically opposed ideolgies. That same model also conflates conservatism and fascism (not too far from the truth) which is why they’re far more accurate at identifying center->right sources.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Edit your original comment here at the top level to say that although you think they can be called state affiliated, that npr is not under the control of any governmental party.

      If you won’t do that, all the bullshit you wrote in the replies is just as hollow as it seems and you’re proven just a right wing troll and no one should ever believe anything you write.