Communicating on a platform you don't own and can't control seems very shortsighted.

I feel like this would be a much more realistic take if social media more broadly was all federated, and anyone's independent instance could still communicate with the others, but that's unfortunately not the case.

For a politician, which is better for their campaign? Starting an independent platform they entirely own and control, but with no local users to start out with, or having an account on an existing platform with millions and millions of users?

Obviously, even though in the first example they would have 100% control over their infrastructure, they wouldn't exactly be spreading their message very far. They could always publish simultaneously on both platforms, but that still doesn't mean much if the second platform has no users. However, the platform that has many millions of users can instantly grant them reach, which is kind of the point of them being on social media in the first place.

On your point about a bot, I'm assuming you mean more like a bridge mechanism that cross-posts from one platform to another. You could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe AOC at least posts a lot of similar messaging on both Twitter and Bluesky, rather than staying isolated to one or the other. It's not exactly the same thing, but it has a similar effect.

In an ideal world, everyone could easily host their own Mastodon server and just communicate with others without being tied to a platform, but unfortunately we still live in a world where the network effect is keeping people trapped in corporate social media silos, and there's only so much an individual politician can do to change that without harming their own ability to message to the public.

Hugh Hefner was a suspected rapist at the time, but Elon is a confirmed Nazi right now.

Nobody left on that platform is going to be convinced of anything anymore.

I'd beg to differ. Although it's true that the ratio of neo-Nazis and generally just far right freaks has far surpassed the number of everyday people, that doesn't mean those people don't exist anymore.

I always bring this up in conversations about leaving social networks, because if you don't understand it, it will warp your entire perspective of why people stay on shitty platforms in the first place. The Network Effect is what keeps people hooked on these platforms, even when the owner becomes a literal neo-Nazi.

The people who have already left are the ones that are capable of and willing to sacrifice the scale, reach, and history that Twitter has, in the hopes that whatever platform they move to will treat them better. Leaving Twitter means deleting your digital history, erasing every connection you've made on the platform, and entirely cutting all of your messaging off from anyone who hasn't yet left.

AOC is already on alternative platforms like Bluesky, so people who are willing and able to move, that would otherwise have stayed solely because she was still on Twitter have already done so. The people that remain do not remain because of her, they remain because of everybody else.

Yes, there are still quite a few neo-Nazis outnumbering the average person on there, but there are still quite a few average people that are still on Twitter. Don't forget that the average person doesn't seem to care when the companies they buy products from exploit child labor, fund wars that keep oil prices low, and suppress the wages of the workers in their own communities. The average person simply does not have the will to sacrifice what they must give up by leaving a large platform like Twitter, so they remain there.

If AOC didn't benefit politically from being on Twitter, then she would have entirely left and deleted her account a while ago.

its call hate-engaging, hatewatching shes is enabling it to be honest. or engaging just to argue with people like AOC.