Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

psypost.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 357 posts

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#121

Post by falcor84 »

an0malous wrote: post #44
hdlothia wrote: post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

X is not politically neutral, Elon openly talks about recalibrating Grok whenever it says something too liberal like recent discussions about gun violence. Scientists should embrace decentralization and use Mastodon in my opinion. Bluesky will meet the same fate as Twitter and X one day

On a side note, I still can't get used to how wanting to restrict access to guns is considered a "liberal" stance.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#122

Post by SanjayMehta »

hdlothia wrote: post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

They can be scientists on both platforms.

Bluesky is just the ideological opposite of whatever X is today, but with more blocking and censorship than even what Twitter had under Dorsey.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#123

Post by throwawaymaths »

greesil wrote: post #74
hdlothia wrote: post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

Science was defunded by politics, and sometimes is political due to existing interests. Why shouldn't scientists talk about politics?

(most) science was also funded by politics.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#124

Post by DonHopkins »

kelipso wrote: post #40
Braxton1980 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. How do they do that?

The “I am an expert, so listen to me drone about some political topic that’s vaguely related to my expertise” has been a thing for years now. And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway. In general, it makes scientists look really naive and makes them lose credibility when they talk about actual science.

So it's "political" to disagree about Tylenol causing autism, or injecting disinfectant curing Covid?

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#125

Post by camel_Snake »

jsheard wrote: post #25
raincole wrote: post #8

According to Bluesky API data, it peaked in November 2024 (for obvious reasons...). [1]: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats

Total activity across the entire site doesn't meaningfully affect users as long as the activity they actually care about is still there, "Bluesky's aggregate metrics are down" and "Bluesky is the best place to talk science" can both be true at the same time. The website you're reading right now has abysmal metrics compared to Facebook and TikTok, but that's not really the point, is it?

yep. This feels like a feature to me, not a bug. As a mostly reader/follower on these platforms I'm surprised when others compare their engagement metrics, rather than the quality of the engagement on these platforms. Obviously their goals and incentives are different than mine, but the more time I spend on the internet the more I value the smaller communities due to the correlation with quality and topical focus.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#126

Post by raincole »

armchairhacker wrote: post #117
hdlothia wrote: post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

Why don't scientists publish anonymously? We already have double-blind peer review. This seems like such an obvious idea, there must be some issue. Authors can still get reputation, recognition, and compensation for their papers, without people knowing who wrote what paper, via public/private keys and blockchain. Every time an author publishes a paper, they generate a new address and attach the public key to it. Judg…

How to force not only one, but three solutions into a non-existing problem. This must be a parody of cryto bros/AI bros, right.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#127

Post by kortilla »

tapoxi wrote: post #72
sejje wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bad, too, but true in many professions I think. But I think what the GP means is let's do science, let's not do hot-political-topics-as-science.

Unfortunately science is unavoidably a political hot topic. Climate change denialism is the norm in the United States, we've somehow decided Tylenol causes autism in the past week, etc.

If you think either of those represent any meaningful portion of science you need to re-evaluate your understanding of science because it’s based on a layman’s perspective.

If you’re not actually involved in science you only see the scientists making news, which disproportionately selects for politically intersecting areas of research.

When I was working at a major US research university in the early 2000s, it was a big deal if the scientific publications got any mainstream press at all.

Countless papers push the boundaries of science in major journals and conferences every year and you never hear about them because they have no political implications and usually no immediate practical applications.

Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place

#129

Post by [deleted] »

timeon wrote: post #51
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #3

X still appears above the fold in a special section on Google with custom previews. Eg. searching 'Anthony Albanese Bluesky' for Australia's leader has a link to X, with custom integrated previews, above the Bluesky link of the PM despite the search explicitly stating Bluesky and despite the account posting to Bluesky. It's hard for anyone to move over since the lack of engagement is rigged like this.

Interesting, maybe it also shows quality of search. I know that these are barely relevant compared to google, but Bing, Ecosia, etc. are showing Bluesky link.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN