Nick Routledge@nick_routledge
Reply to @reggaj

@reggaj FB's still exemplary for co-ordinating dynamic, face-to-face projects. If conversations stay public (rather than ingroups peeling out to group PM) the UI powerfully supports (a sense of) democratic involvement. FB local town groups tend to be populous and incredibly responsive.

Quoted or linked post

Nick Routledge@nick_routledge · 10 Jan 2022

@ifIknewIdtellya @cognazor Spot on. Twitter’s for far-flung common interests; IG is where organic market farmers hang, Stateside, with an occasional, important exception such as the FB Market Gardening Success Group (44K members); FB is where local, grounded, regenerative design projects are co-ordinated.

View this post’s context →

Context in the archive

Quoted by@AramisLPerez Different platform infrastructures correlate with entirely different social ecologies. X, for example, is built around interest graphs, not relationship graphs. In FB, the core unit is not the post but the person within a bounded community. Hence, we mix and match platforms.Quoted byTelling. Meta automatically AI-enabled our highly-convivial, 2014-established, 2.9k member FB group - a core, grassroots, intelligence-sharing and collaborative organizing platform for hands-on, mostly PNW-based, regenerative designers. So we took a poll. The result? Unanimous.