@davebritton The numerical arguments of "reach" on corporate social media can be quite a mental trap. It's quite understandable as it seems impossible to compete. And I would be dishonest to say that activism on big platforms is completely ineffective.
But it might be better to re-frame the argument in terms of goals and values. If you're interested in promoting regional, organic and slow food do you meet at McDonalds and Burger King because that's where the biggest numbers of eaters go? Every post or scroll on FB makes some billionaires a little bit richer. How much does it promote your cause? Do those numbers of followers, views and likes actually translate to a growing, active community or just a palliative, vague and often distant sense of passive identity? Using an advertising platform to promote socialism, while competing with all the other parties pushing and selling antithetical stuff might not be the best use of one's efforts.
@davebritton To extend the food metaphor, but in regards to corporate vs. FLOSS/federated tools: we could compare instant, highly-processed foods to cooking for yourself. One could give up and say it's impossible to compete so we should just try to convince or regulate the giant food companies to use more organic ingredients. Or we could show people that there are lots of simple, quick things you can cook yourself if you are willing to learn a little bit. And perhaps more importantly and compellingly, by cooking yourself, you open up to a lifetime's worth of diverse, exiting encounters: cultural, social, sensuous, etc.
It's just a metaphor so it will not be true in all cases but I do feel that, although it took a little more time and effort, my current experience here has a lot more "Savoir Vivre" than the microwave pizza that is FB or Twitter.
We are an instance for discussions around cultural freedom, experimental, new media art, net and computational culture, and things like that.