I don't understand all the comments promoting the openness of twitter/x. There's a ton of friction to interact with X without an account. Meanwhile, the alternatives mostly allow third party apps, cross posting, and logged out access.
I can follow mastodon and threads accounts on my bluesky timeline using one of many bridge services: https://fed.brid.gy/
I can merge mastodon, bluesky, nostr, and threads one timeline using one of many third party apps: https://openvibe.social/
When people say that X is "Open" they often mean "Open to people like me saying whatever I want." IMO It's often a wink and a nod, a dog whistle, not a serious argument. For all of the reasons you laid out, especially on a site like HN, it's hard (even being charitable) to assume that people mean "X is more open, as in accessible, free to use, etc".
What X has become is a place where you can pay to have your "views" promoted into other people's feeds, a place where bots run rampant, and a place where extremists can share their views without any fear of consequences.
Yet X is still way more diverse, whereas bluesky is mostly white, upper middle class westerners. It is funny to see the least diverse community I've come across pat themselves on the back for somehow being more tolerant. And also accuse users of other, more diverse platforms of "dog whistling".
I'm sure that a platform policed by said privileged groups is somehow better morally or something. Who was dogwhistling again?
If we're talking about diversity, X is mostly bots, so even less diverse than your characterization of Bluesky. You do make a valid point though, fortunately Bluesky is growing and X is not, especially where it counts with outlets like Nature Group, and companies like BMW.
Nor is Bluesky policed by privileged groups, and as a bonus you don't even have to pay for some silly checkmark. What could be more egalitarian than "Free"?
I mean, I completely agree with you when you say that bluesky has more potential. I want bluesky to be a better twitter (I just don't think that twitter was that great even before it became X).
But there's still a long way for it to reach out of the US and Europe. I don't know why, but X is extremely popular in places like the middle East (I was following the fall of Assad in real time), and even Asia, etc. It's something that doesn't even exist anywhere else.
Twitter used to be open, but being open doesn't make you a lot of money. Thanks to the upcoming AI industry running on (scraping) user generated content, being open costs more and cuts into profits. The service went downhill fast once they needed to make a healthy profit.
Have any of the X changes been positive for the investment, though?
They all seem to have diminished audience, lessened influence, and resulted in less ad revenue. It's very clear that X has a far smaller burn rate than Twitter did, but it also seems to have lessened revenue, and it's really unclear that there's any profit at all.
It's not a publicly traded company and hence Musk + his backers can do whatever they want. It's their toy and I'm not in the business of policing anything (within the law) they do with it.
It would be irksome if Musk went on lawsuit spree + PR campaign incessantly complaining that advertisers are 'killing free speech' by not advertising on the platform. Like some weird civic duty that publicly traded businesses with a fiduciary directive ought to have. But, let's be real, folks operating on Musk's level are too clever/business-savvy for anything that amateurish.
That's certainly a risk, and bluesky STILL has no user funding, sustainable or otherwise. But making your site a heavily walled garden is bad for any kind of open Internet.
Twitter seemed to have some cool engineering going on but the number of developers always seemed kinda ridiculous, I suppose they added so many features the vast majority of users never used or needed. Most people I know used it just the same as when they signed up pre 2013 (maybe with the addition of lists).
It's open as in "diverse" imo. Blue sky is still mostly white, mostly western, mostly technical people. X on the other hand has so many different communities and is much more open for "average users". It's a similar problem on mastodon
I think that's probably right. The difference is the content. I don't fault people for preferring the X content. It's not even all nazis.
However, this is exactly the argument that people use to criticize bluesky. What is an echo chamber if not going to a place where you get the content you want. 99% of people who think they're taking a principled stand on moderation or openness in either direction are lying to themselves.
That only applies to Bluesky users who opt in, which in my experience is only a small minority of users. Bluesky also does not have a notion of a (fully) private profile, like Twitter/X does
Logged out, I can only see about 80% of tweets when I'm sent the link. I can see almost 0 profiles (only very large brands and verified?), can't search, can't see replies, etc.
I think bluesky only hides people who opt in to hiding their posts.
BlueSky has its problems, but the problems are more bearable than Twitter. You can have conversations about science and technology without weird angry people/bots popping up in the replies and shouting at you.
Twitter used to be great that way as well, but now it isn't. Losing those communication channels is a big loss, no matter what you think of social media.
The blocklists systems can often be over-broad and sneakily include personal beefs, but overall the bluesky norm of "block on sight on first aggressive contact" is having a positive effect against engagement-baiting.
Hostile actors seem to be trying something else: LLM "reply guys", which make superficially plausible conversation in your replies.
Twitter is really the King Log/King Stork parable writ large. It had problems under Jack, as absentee owner, but getting an owner who is interested in making it his personal platform is much worse.
Edit: this post has already been flagged off the front page, lol
> The blocklists systems can often be over-broad and sneakily include personal beefs, but overall the bluesky norm of "block on sight on first aggressive contact" is having a positive effect against engagement-baiting.
The block system also being being weaponized at the moment. I've personally been added to a "MAGA Trolls", a "Porn Bots", a "Zionist Allies", and a "84 second automobile extravaganza" block-list in the last few days. I even got added to a list because I subscribed to the Listifications [1] service, which is what notifies me about these additions. But all these lists, as well as their creators, have subsequently been banned.
It's an interesting arms race, where an optimal bot has better chances of surviving than a normal person that will naturally have diverse opinions.
As I pointed out in another comment:
The right can pretend to be antagonizing extremist LGBTs to get more centrists to support their agenda - while undermining the LGBT movement itself also from within.
I'm saying that right wing activist groups can use botnet to pretend to be LGBT, while being hateful and extreme in their views, to the point that "normal" people (who are indifferent about LGBT) become annoyed with "LGBT" to the point of supporting Trump etc.
I'm saying that LGBT groups need to be aware that there is a serious internal threat of people pretending to be LGBT while harassing people who are not against LGBT, but will be.
An alternative explanation is that LGBT people are just a hateful bunch, but I'm trying to argue against that hypothesis.
> The blocklists systems can often be over-broad and sneakily include personal beefs, but overall the bluesky norm of "block on sight on first aggressive contact" is having a positive effect against engagement-baiting.
Yeah, it's kind of inspiring to see even the common person is getting used to just block trolls on sight, rather than engaging in it. Something we veterans been doing for 2 decades or more, but good to see others are catching up on how to save your sanity :)
That said, the other day I ended up on a "Transphobes, Genocide Enthusiasts, and Crumbums" list for some reason on Bluesky, while I haven't even posted anything about those topics or engaging in anything like that. Makes one wonder how many others on a list like that actually even discussed the supposed topics?
I kind of wish people had to justify additions to lists somehow, like adding a reason or at least linking the post that made you add this user to the list, or something similar.
We still need to resolve a lot of questions about healthy usermod tool usage. The "open market" of usermod tooling -- that is, with low institutional auditing -- does press the community to engage in auditing themselves, for better and for worse.
With that acknowledged, I have to wonder if the listifications bot is solving the problem well. It's catching every list anybody makes, so now trolls are getting more impact. It gives me some questions about the list feature as we wrote it, but listifications is constructed with a default-trust mentality that really shouldn't apply.
Some blocklist maintainers are very trigger happy. You may have been added for following the "wrong" person or following someone who follows the "wrong" person.
Same. And Bluesky also allows you to bring your own feed algorithm, so if you don't like the discover feed you could make a better one! It's not a hypothetical either, I follow and use several custom feeds today (for example, one that shows post by people who follow _me_, so I can discover people to follow back).
This is far from the first time I've seen it mentioned. Seems quite possible that if you're a heavy user it has enough source material for your recommendations that they'll be good, but for less regular users it'll draw from whatever is 'trending'.
One of the major selling points of Bluesky is that you get to chose your own algorithms (or rather, chose what algorithms you want to use, that others built).
So there are way more algorithms than any other social media, today. Only difference is that with Bluesky you get to chose which one you use.
Bluesky has a number of algorithmic feeds. For instance "What's Hot Classic".
And while that feed doesn't have violence, it does have a surprisingly high number of "dudes holding their cock" and furry-related images, which seems like something that should probably be filtered out or at least tagged.
Well, no, violent content is against Bluesky's terms of service so it would be removed if flagged. Twitter has no such restriction so violent content spreads widely.
I understand the free speech principle at work but from a purely pragmatic point of view I simply don't want to see that stuff in my day to day browsing of social media.
(apologies for AI summary of the above articles; was just trying to be helpful!)
Elon Musk's tenure at X (formerly Twitter) has been marked by a series of actions that starkly contrast his self-proclaimed stance as a "free speech absolutist." Despite his vocal advocacy for unrestricted expression, Musk has overseen a significant increase in account suspensions and content restrictions, often targeting critics and journalists.
Notably, X has suspended numerous journalists who have reported critically on Musk or his ventures. For instance, in December 2022, the platform suspended accounts of reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, among others, who covered Musk's activities. These actions have raised concerns about the suppression of dissenting voices and the erosion of journalistic freedom on the platform.
Associated Press
Furthermore, under Musk's leadership, X has shown a heightened willingness to comply with government censorship requests. During the 2023 Turkish presidential election, the platform restricted access to certain content within Turkey, a move that critics argue was influenced by Musk's business interests in the region, including SpaceX's satellite launches in collaboration with the Turkish government.
These actions suggest a departure from Musk's professed commitment to free speech, revealing a pattern of behavior that prioritizes personal and business interests over the principle of open expression. The increasing suppression of critical voices and compliance with authoritarian regimes' censorship demands highlight a concerning inconsistency between Musk's stated ideals and his actions as the steward of a major social media platform.
You can also choose your own moderation, algorithmic feeds, and frontend
The API is open and free too, making it much easier to build on the network. The system is designed so that we can design new record types and create all sorts of applications on ATProto. It's going to go well beyond just a Twitter clone and each app shares the same social fabric, instead of having to attract their own, which is going to accelerate the network effect
Is it perfectly federated, no, there are weak points that will be made less weak with time. It's not a reason to put it down
I created a parody Donald Trump account as an experiment. It was deleted for "impersonation". Are you saying if I had run it on my own PDS, other people would get to choose whether it was deleted for them or not?
I obviously can't speak to your specific situation. As I understand it, both X and bluesky require parodies to be labeled.
From what I can tell, most content moderation on bluesky is done via labelers, which you need a pds to run, but not to use.
Both X and bluesky have semi-automated moderation processes with an inherent false positive rate. The two high profile cases I'm aware of (Jessie Singal and Laura Loomer) that were suspended automatically eventually got turned back on once a human was involved.
tl;dr - anyone can run a labelling service, users have choice which one(s) they use (Bluesky &| 3rd party), competition and network effect will surface the good ones and weed out the bad ones.
This concept is going to be extended to community notes, sometime this year I suspect
Yeah. Think that got the broad strokes of the atproto architecture right for social media. Individual data stores -> aggregation/crawler layer -> services/app views. Feels like how search engines work with html web sites.
I think it will be more successful than Mastodon has been.
It's already 3x+ the size and growing faster, I would say it is already more successful in one regard. Next up is to build out the app ecosystem that APub has
Note: the reasons Bluesky is more popular than Mastodon have nothing to do with their technical architectures (except insofar as some people have learned helplessness about x@y), and everything to do with one being heavily marketed by a billionaire.
Though people do seem to prefer a consistent moderation policy, even if it's harsher. People don't like to have free speech about the things they want to speak about, and have another group of people choose to ignore it. They want to either speak to everyone at once or be blocked from everyone at once (at which time they make a new account).
I'm not sure what / which you are talking about in that second paragraph, but it does not describe moderation and preferences on Bluesky. ATProto has the best moderation scheme I have seen. It enables user choice and provider competition
The reason Mastodon | ActivityPub is not on boarding users like Bluesky | ATProto has a lot to do with the friction and discovery differences. ATProto was designed in part by understanding where ActivityPub had limitations and rough edges
I dunno about that. Bluesky deleted my entire alternate account parodying Donald Trump. Could I host it on my own PDS instead? Maybe, but they still own *the* relay.
I wish there was a bluesky with less moderation. I don’t want bots and spam, but since I can control my own feeds and the mute functions actually work, I can shape it better than the other networks let me. I think that should be the real goal.
I meant more along the lines of kicking off people with viewpoints their user base doesn’t like. The Lauren Loomer’s of the world. I vehemently disagree with every thing she stands for and I agree that Bluesky has a right to ban her.
But long run, I think we suffer when the biggest platforms turn into partisan black holes.
I want a platform that is accessible to "normal" people, spends tons of effort blocking bots, has a UX that makes it easy to manage content you do and don’t see, and is open to any human to speak.
This comes up in most bluesky threads. I honestly can’t tell you what it is but every experience I have with Mastodon sucks. Maybe you can point me in a better direction.
I want a platform that:
• blocks bots and maybe doesn’t allow companies as users
• user control first (blocking, custom algos, smart word filtering, content/topic based filtering)
• does not deplatform users for their views
• has community notes
The downside is the constant 'rot' of online content. I know most of it was not very valuable, but I find sad how little of our small scale, daily life record will be left after the walled gardens inevitably go down and the server data erased.
> Yeah the typical issue of "they could go bad" is always present.
It's at least refreshing to see Bluesky PBC try to prevent it by setting up guardrails themselves, like allowing people to host their data somewhere else, which seems to work today already.
Here's to hoping the federation stuff shapes up nicely too.
No, this is totally grassroots by the people, though it is in the same city Bluesky is located. This kind of thing is just getting started, it is actually a guy from Vancouver that is taking the lead on this one.
Thanks, I've already developed a bunch of tools, services and feeds for Bluesky, so I'm well aware of the general ecosystem, was just looking for physical events to attend to outside of the US. Thanks though, and I'm sure others will find your brief overview helpful :)
What is "being bulldozed by them" like for you? I hear this sort of thing a lot, but I really can't say I've ever felt this way. And I am a devout member of a rigorous and conservative religious tradition, but I just don't ever feel personally affected by this issue.
You think there is an organized HN lgbt brigade that coordinates downvoting and flagging of your posts? And they are funded by some external source (astroturfing)? Am I understanding you correctly?
Got a link? If all he's doing is posting about AI I'm not sure why he'd provoke such responses but I'd be interested to see.
> People who have moved to Bluesky like to tell themselves it's the "smart place", but it's really just the place where you agree with the politics.
I migrated to Bluesky and I don't regard it for one second as a smart place. No social media is. My experience is that it's a quiet place, in the sense that a lot of people are talking but there are way fewer raised voices than there are over on Twitter, where people get monetarily rewarded for making viral content so they scream for attention.
Both sites are just people with opinions, so you're going to have the gamut. Bluesky does have a very vocal, brigading "AI is all mediocre and theft and you should feel shame if you use it" contingent, and there are loads and loads of simply terrible takes on AI there.
Loads of authors and artists and other creatives flooded to bluesky early on, and kind of do a territorial land grab in the Shirky "A group is its own worst enemy" fashion. There are a number of groups on the site that feel that it is "their" site and they need to bully contrary opinions away.
Though if some guy is feeding his Twitter audience by baiting people on Bluesky, they're likely fomenting the response.
You can probably find it if so inclined, he appears in my feed whenever these conversations come up. I have no interest in "proving it".
>My experience is that it's a quiet place, in the sense that a lot of people are talking but there are way fewer raised voices than there are over on Twitter, where people get monetarily rewarded for making viral content.
Both are the same format: it's a post and a stream of replies. Both are the same "volume". Both provide monetary value for viral content, though Twitter is much more explicit in that sense.
Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. It’s notable in your post and replies to it we’ve got multiple instance of folks saying “this totally reasonable thing happened on Bluesky and people went crazy” while providing zero contextual links. Very possible we have quite different definitions of “totally reasonable” and “crazy” here.
> Both provide monetary value for viral content, though Twitter is much more explicit in that sense.
Come on. Twitter literally pays our users based on the viewing figures of their tweets. Bluesky has absolutely nothing comparable. The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change.
>Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical.
I don't care if you're skeptical, I'm not going to placate sealions. Go use Bluesky. My experience there is it's just as political. Let's revisit in a year.
>The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change.
I can't provide a contextual link for a subjective judgement about the quality of conversation on Twitter. You can provide a contextual link for the guy on Twitter who posts about AI and has been reposting his Bluesky interactions on Twitter.
All I'm hearing from your contributions to this thread is "I'm interested in saying things, I'm not interested in listening to responses". Which makes for a pretty poor level of discussion that's beneath HN.
It's called citing sources. You've posted 2,087 times and only 56 of those posts include "http"[1], which is a measly 2.7%. In comparison, I've posted 556 times and 205 of my posts include "http", which is 36.9%. The problem isn't sealioning; it's that you're either lazy or you just make things up. And given that you're not too lazy to reply to a request for a source without actually providing a source, it's reasonable to assume you might be making shit up.
Putting random links in your comments is of limited value, and it shouldn't add authority to your claims. It's actually too common on HN for people to make things up and then put some sort of citation that actually doesn't support what they are claiming whatsoever, knowing that 99.9% of users just don't care that much. The fact that it actually works on some people is hugely unfortunate.
However while I'm not the other guy, how about [1] and [2]. I desperately hope that this ups my links to post ratio!
The whole "block list" thing on bsky has been a massive torch mob/brigading tactic, and it's boorish.
> People who have moved to Bluesky like to tell themselves it's the "smart place", but it's really just the place where you agree with the politics.
I don't care if it's the smart place, but it's nice to have a feed that reminds me of pre-2015 internet spaces where people talked about things other than politics. I just did an experiment and opened up the for-you page on X, and out of 18 random posts of people I didn't follow, 10 were political in nature (ranging from MAGA to far left).
I open Bluesky and I see art, technical projects, people's pets, etc.
>I don't care if it's the smart place, but it's nice to have a feed that reminds me of pre-2015 internet spaces where people talked about things other than politics.
Sure. I went over in the recent migration/exodus and half my feed was (and still is): anti-Trump, anti-Musk and COVID. And I am following a very particular topic/niche, not random accounts. There is plenty of politics.
I wish Bluesky was the answer, but it isn't yet, as much as people keep pretending.
Your following feed, or discover feed? I make my following feed the default (an ability that X took away to boost engagement) and I don't see much politics in following at all, and I have to scroll discover for a while even to find some political jokes.
Second this. I apparently got broadly listbanned and accused of promoting "hasbarah" (a word I had to look up at the time and which is basically used more as a cudgel than a valid accusation) on Day 1 of Bluesky membership, simply for correcting misinformation being pushed by a Quranic-literalist* supporter.
No thanks. Not interested in echo-chamber echoing; I only care about the best truths I can find.
* that's my politically-defanged term for "terrorists"
I'm not sure if I would agree with that, definitely a lot of political arguments going on in bsky. It definitely used to be an echochamber though. But with Twitter being packed with Nazi's and every other comment being a sex-spambot I would guess plenty of non-traditional bluesky users have come over.
I have a niche I follow on Twitter, and during the great Twitter migration a few month back, everyone made an effort to head to Bluesky. I did as well, because I want good content, I don't care about the platform.
It's already a ghost town. Sparse posting, lots of empty "here's what I cooked for supper" posts.
Yes, through blocklists. Jesse Singal and his coterie of ‘just asking questions’ ‘polite’ transphobes are on Bluesky, say, but through judicious use of blocklists one never needs to hear from them.
I mean, sure, okay. And, er, so? I don’t go to social networks to listen to weird obsessive bigots. If nothing else, those people are incredibly _boring_; it’s basically just the one joke. There is no moral obligation to listen to the ranting of crazy people.
Unfortunately, this is a result of twitter censorship directly caused by harassment of the science community. A specific type of censoring people that is often ignored. In this way, Twitter practices more censorship than most platforms!
A bit off topic, but does anyone know why there's only one Bluesky relay, or can direct me to an article? Even if the hardware requirements are high, I'd think someone would've made a second relay by now.
Can anyone recommend good science or ml people to follow on bluesky? I've moved from twitter, but haven't quite found as interesting content yet, especially with ML - seems like they are still posting on twitter
But at some point they will have to interact with people outside the hermetic filter bubble(s) of BlueSky - even if it relates more to the results and byproducts as opposed to the raw research.
How is it Bluesky a "hermetic filter bubble?" I'm not aware that anyone only interacts with people on Bluesky, nor do I see any indication from the article that this is the case.
Choosing not to interact with Twitter is not equivalent to sealing oneself away from the world.
Bluesky as a whole isn't a hermetic filter bubble, but most people on it set up blocklists so they never have to see anyone with opinions they disagree with.
This is in line with the ideal scenario of Twitter remaining online as a quarantine for spam and culture war stuff, but real traffic migrating slowly elsewhere, hopefully without any single "winner" ever becoming big enough to attract what was left behind.
Is that expected to last though? As far as I understand, the reason Twitter got popular for all the "culture war" stuff was because there was more people engaging with it there, otherwise they would have kept themselves to Social Truth or whatever it's called.
These people thrive on reactions, if there is no reaction to what they say, they'll get bored and move over to the place where the people who'd react is.
Not forever. I’d be rather surprised if Twitter still exists in a decade. And then maybe Bluesky will get bad. But, well, that is how it goes. No social network lasts forever. You move every five to 10 years.
> Although the survey is not statistically representative of Nature readers or the scientific community at large
I found that the survey seems to have been advertised for with "Has Bluesky replaced X for scientists?" according to this article from Jan 14 [1].
This attracts people who switched more I think.
So the 70% figure is nothing than hot air.
It is still interesting seeing the positive sentiments and reasons for switching analyzed.
Could you please stop using HN primarily for ideological battle? We have to ban accounts that do this. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
I don't want to ban you because you've also posted some good things, but I had to scroll pretty far back to find more than one. If you'd please fix this, we'd appreciate it.
By all accounts they’re making decisions based on their experiences on each platform, not maximum reach. This doesn’t happen in a vacuum: decisions are made by the executive and those decisions have consequences. If X wants scientists, make it enjoyable for scientists to participate. If anything, put blame at the feet of X’s leadership. Or enjoy the platform but accept that others don’t.
What's far left about the platform? The platform seems more open. Given the choice between a left or right user base, seems like the platform fundamentals would be more important.
The platform itself - i.e. the technical bits - is not "far-left", it just ended up absorbing the most recent victims of Musk-phobia. In that way is a mirror image of what happened to Twitter-alternatives from back when Twitter was run by more or less the same crowd as that which now insists on migrating to BS: something like Parler became a haven for those who were pushed out and with that ended up being a "right-wing" platform even though the technology (based on Mastodon) itself was no "right-wing". Wikipedia ended up with a left-wing bias due to the influx of ideologically left-leaning editors (academics and ex-academics with time on their hands), not because Mediawiki is a "left-wing" wiki engine.
Its the continuation of the echo chambers but platform specific instead of say the algorithm on a platform focusing content your way. Or potentially a super concentrated version since you have both a platform that leans one way, so the the content selection via recommender is limited by its range.
Being in academia (or very adjacent to it), there are two types of BlueSky users:
1) The ones that moved because of ideological reasons
2) The ones that moved b/c Twitter became a desolate hellscape.
I'm closer to (2) than to (1), and the difference between 2024 and 2020-2022 twitter is stark. Before, if you had an interesting tweet about a new article you would get lots of engagement (retweets, discussions, people disagreeing and pushing back).
Now? Nothing, just a few random retweets or comments from non-academic people that almost feel LLM-generated. Compound this with network effects, and even my right-wing pro-Trump colleagues (and there are some) decided to at the very least dual-post.
> non-academic people that almost feel LLM-generated
I don't understand why this isn't talked about as much as the MAGA garbage. I occasionally read tweets by a couple prominent Rubyists who've been using Twitter since 2006 (because Twitter was written in Ruby, which attracted Rubyists) and none of the replies to their tweets are written by familiar Rubyists like back in the day. Most of the replies are from accounts created in the past few years with AI-generated profile images.
> Or maybe someone can explain why a researcher would leave a platform with 100x the reach
Not everyone is out after "widest reach", some people just want to have reasonable discussions about things, without overly emotional reactions. Those people have been migrating over to Bluesky since you can actually have dialogues and discussions there without it derailing instantly.
I think the Fediverse took this role for a lot of groups, since it's not trying to show everything to everyone by default, but trying to attract accounts with similar interests to the same servers, and then have some limited cross-server interaction.
> Or maybe someone can explain why a researcher would leave a platform with 100x the reach, when they can just disable or limit comments.
Platforms are what we make them.
Possubly Nature figured out that by posting content on Twitter they are helping promote a platform that is perhaps hostile to their purpose. Or maybe they would have a wider reach, but to a completely wrong audience.
Or maybe they just figured out Twitter is ass, and decided to post on a better platform, by whatever measurement of "better" they have.
By reducing everything to "ideologically captured", you are saying a lot more about yourself than about Nature.
I can't say I'm posting a lot of links, but there's a pretty wide consensus from people who post on both that the Twitter view volume doesn't necessarily translate to a higher engagement volume, even if they have many times fewer followers on bluesky
Many large accounts report higher engagement on Bluesky despite having much higher follower counts on X. The effect is especially profound when you’re linking to an external site. X absolutely buries external links.
> Many large accounts report higher engagement on Bluesky despite having much higher follower counts on X.
What do you mean "despite higher follower counts"? Accounts with more followers are expected to have less engagement compared to accounts with less followers.
I mean the user will do the same post on both X and bluesky and find that they get more clicks, retweets, likes, and replies on Bluesky despite having far more followers on X.
Yeah, and my point is that something like that happens on every social network. The more followers you have, the less total engagement (%) you get, usually. There are always outliers of course.
From the article: “Bluesky is much better for science. There is much less toxicity, misinformation, and distractions,” wrote one respondent. “My feed is almost entirely scientists and I actually get updates on research that is relevant and timely,” wrote another
>Or maybe someone can explain why a researcher would leave a platform with 100x the reach
Nazis. That's why I left.
The US has turned toward fascism and Musk is a big part of that. He has endeared himself to the Trump administration, which has promised to institute policies of nationalism, discrimination, and authoritarianism. Twitter will likely be used as a tool of propaganda and disinformation, if it's not already. Meta is equally compromised in my view.
Easy or hard, I have no interest in using the platforms of boot-licking oligarchs. Even if they have 100x reach. (I'm not a researcher).
I can follow mastodon and threads accounts on my bluesky timeline using one of many bridge services: https://fed.brid.gy/
I can merge mastodon, bluesky, nostr, and threads one timeline using one of many third party apps: https://openvibe.social/
I can unsubscribe from the default bluesky moderation service and choose one run by a third party: https://bsky.social/about/blog/4-13-2023-moderation
The only differentiator for X is the content, and that's an easy choice.