In the given context, it actually has a very specific meaning:
We experienced an increase from [a number that is slightly larger than a particular round number] to [a larger number, round or exact].
The focus is on the starting number being slightly larger than a round number, not the increase. In the first example, the author means that they started with at least 12,000,001. In the second example, the writer wants to be clear that they started at more than 600. (Presumably the writer believes that Facebook likes are indicative of something or other.)
Apart from that, an alternate phrasing would be perfectly good:
We experienced an increase from approximately [round number] to [another round number].
However, this is slightly ambiguous in everyday English, since it could be taken as meaning that both numbers are approximate, and the second case you mentioned is very specific about the number of likes they ended up with.
All that being said, the usual disclaimers about the reliability of English usage on Facebook apply.
Short answer:
Well. . .
Why not follow the "crowd"?
Long(er) answer:
As long as chat to/with is concerned, chat with is way more common. This might get a little bit complicated and confusing, as I attempt to compare the patterns between the three closely related verbs. Note that pretty much 90% of the arguments here can also apply to chat.
So, for the benefit of doubt, let's take a look at ngrams about similar pairs:
Speak to/with
Talk to/with
How would I interpret this?
Chat has a bit of a more informal, more friendly overtone. The act of chatting is usually expected to be collaborative, two- or several-sided, voluntary etc. while there's less of this connotation in verbs talk and speak. In other words, we expect chatting to naturally be followed by with.
Pfft, Is that it?
No, there's more to it; let's use the irony of the name of "Quick & Dirty Tips" to quote one of their articles:
It’s true that the phrase “talk with someone” clearly refers to a two-way (or many-way) conversation. Still, “talk to someone” doesn’t rule out a two-way conversation. Any number of things could be happening while you’re “talking to” someone that you don’t mention, including that the person might be talking back to you. A Google search turns up many hits for strings like “I talked with them and they said”, but it also does for strings like “I talked to them and they said”, which indicates that many writers don’t interpret “talk to” to exclude a two-way conversation.
For the record,
“I talked with them and they said” returns 156k results from Google, while "“I talked to them and they said” returns 340k (!).
10 results in Google books for "I talked to them and they said" vs. 1 result for "I talked with them and they said"
First 12 results in COCA are all talk to.
Almost all of the COCA results for chat to/with are using the preposition with.
Most of the consensus in an ELU question regarding speak to/with is about the bidirectional-ness of speak with; in a similar manner to talk with and chat with. However, no upvoted answer claimed there's an obligation in correspondence with choosing the pair related to the meaning implied.
The article goes on by bringing two of the Grice's Maxims as arguments, one for and one against the use of to.
The maxim of quantity
- “Make your contribution as informative as
required.”
- “Don’t make your contribution more informative
than is required.” - Grice's Maxims - Maxim of quantity
So, basically, since talk with is more correct; you should use that instead of talk to when referring to an interactive conversation.
The maxim of relevance/relation
“Be relevant.” - Grice's Maxims - Maxim of relation
So, basically, one could argue that talk to is better since the indication that the talk was interactive is irrelevant info and there's no harm in removing it.
Furthermore, there's this ELU question with a good answer adjacent to it. Quoting the answer:
Talk to can result in a dialogue, of course, but marks the initial intention of a serious monologue, like:
I'm going to talk to my boss today and ask for a raise.
-> I will go to his office, give a serious speech and hopefully it will result in a rational dialogue.
We're having a party tonight and my boss will be there, so I'm sure I'll talk with him a lot.
-> We will have a casual conversation, but nothing too serious I'd like to give a speech about
As you can see, and as the accepted answer has pointed out, seeing chat and seriousness go together is a bit of a rare occasion. This also further explains why chat with is more common.
TL;DR:
These pair of words are observed in normal conversation: Talk to/with, chat to/with and speak to/with.
Chat with is more common than chat to by a large margin. However, talk to and speak to are more common than their corresponding phrases, also by a considerable margin.
This can be explained by three factors:
- The verb chat itself has a subtle indication of an interactive and two-sided conversation.
- Many authors prefer to use the pairs talk to and speak to because they don't see it necessary to indicate the existence of a dialog rather than a monologue.
- One sense of talk to does imply dialogue, but also implies its seriousness; while chat is typically not serious.
Thus, to answer the main question, chat with is more common than chat to. You may prefer to use whichever preposition you want in this case, based on the meaning you want to imply. But I suggest (not obligate) you use the with version, since people with similar interests (in your context) are unlikely not to have a friendly and casual conversation.
Due to avoidance of the stimulus "OH THE HORROR!" sympathetic response from the reader, the author did not discuss any other inflections or prepositions in this answer of his.
Best Answer
There's not really any way to explain why certain words are with chat in these situations, except that they've evolved through the internet age and are just how we say it, now. So there is no source or reference for me to give you, except that this is standard usage:
To speculate as to why these patterns came about:
It's likely that you are described as in a chatroom because it contains the word room, and if we take the abstract concept of a chatroom and consider it a physical object, then you would always describe yourself as in a physical room.
You get on/log on to a chat provider similarly to how you log on to any other website; it's just how it's phrased, I don't have any speculations as to the etymology.
Perhaps we talk on chat because while on chat we are online, or because the text we type appears on the chat window.
When referring to the chat provider by name instead of the generic chat in general, perhaps we can use over similarly to how we can say over the phone; we're imagining the chat provider as sending our messages across, or over, their network.
At any rate, the above is just speculation as to why these usages are prevalent. Just stick with the rules and you should be fine, I doubt there will be a pop quiz on the origins! :)