Very good question Why are so many public institutions not on alternative platforms? (And so many really aren’t). Wild

They were slow to adopt social media in the first place and needed overwhelming proof of its value before they did. Massively overhauling their social media strategy now to pivot away from Twitter/Facebook would require a similarly huge effort from public servants who are even aware of the issue.

After I read that, I understand why Mastodon isn't a viable option fediversereport.com/last-week-in... . HOWEVER, I don't understand why they don't use Threads (basically, it's like an Instagram extension and what they post in the first one appears in the second one too) or [1/2]

Inertia. That's it. Most aren't remotely aware of what's going on at X, and even when they find out they're put off moving by the cost and reassured by everyone else staying.

It might depend on how easily they can post to multiple platforms automatically, but I think this is possible for most major platforms now. Otherwise, government agencies just move very slowly.

Old habits die hard?

Especially in the UK- they had the perfect "reason" to make the leap with Twitter's role in the Southport misinformation. But no leadership from official accounts. Just gives the message that Muslims/ northern towns don't matter.

I'm just weirded out about the thought in general that public institutions are locked into social media platforms at all, facebook pages, instagra accounts, would make sense for them to own their own means of communication. But at the same time they have to be where people are.

My feeling is that they’re always behind the curve. They were slow to Twitter too, and then joined when ‘it’s what you have to do’.

Because they leave it to the Comms team. Who then have to get the move authorised by someone who knows what the issue is. Senior management spend all day on linked in making up stories about how they’re brilliant and know bugger all about X.