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

161–170 of 357 posts

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

#161

Post by tptacek »

CyberMacGyver wrote: post #153
tptacek wrote: post #111

I don't understand how Bluesky is going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. It has apparent value propositions past the social network, but none of those use cases are visibly taking off and none of them appear to be monetizable. The social network itself is what will be evaluated when they go out for more funding. And I don't…

> I don't understand how Bluesky is going going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. Do you have any data to back this up? Also famously twitter is losing value and advertisers and users still it’s not stopped twitter from existing Regarding engagement doesn’t twitter have lot more low quality engagement vs Bkuesky

I wouldn't invest in Twitter either!

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

#162

Post by packetlost »

jghn wrote: post #131
tptacek wrote: post #111

I don't understand how Bluesky is going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. It has apparent value propositions past the social network, but none of those use cases are visibly taking off and none of them appear to be monetizable. The social network itself is what will be evaluated when they go out for more funding. And I don't…

What I've found is that most of the people I really want to follow are exclusively on bsky. BUT most of the people I'd prefer to casually follow either exclusively or mostly only posts on Twitter. And the 2nd group is a much larger pool than the first group. I really dislike Mastodon so gave that up a while back. I know there are a few people I'd like to follow who only post there, but such is life.

I've found Bluesky does a really bad job at not showing me stuff I don't want to see. Furry p*rn on the "cute internet cats" feed? Yup. Heaps and heaps of political rage bait on the main discover feed? Yup.

I wanted to like BlueSky, but it's such a bizarre echo chamber of people who left Twitter for ideological reasons that it basically filters for people that I actively don't want to engage with.

Those types of people are still there on Twitter (mostly on the other side these days), but I don't see them because the algorithm filters them out.

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

#163

Post by raincole »

tptacek wrote: post #111

I don't understand how Bluesky is going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. It has apparent value propositions past the social network, but none of those use cases are visibly taking off and none of them appear to be monetizable. The social network itself is what will be evaluated when they go out for more funding. And I don't…

> I don't understand how Bluesky is going going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken.

Are you an insider? Where are the numbers?

how_long_can_bluesky_exists = f(usage, headcount, funding)

Three parameters and you supplied zero of them.

It does sound like you just randomly picked a number 2026 and proceeded to rant on how little engagement you received on Bluesky.

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

#164

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

altcognito wrote: post #96
cowpig wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense?

Social media is bad for you. Though I'm not sure that social media enjoyed a "social media is good for you" phase. There are certainly studies I'm sure that are out there, but the general consensus seems to be negative.

They did, 2006 to 2008-2010, when LinkedIn was considered hot and useful.

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

#165

Post by biomedicalist »

Most scientists don't have a professional profile on Twitter or Bluesky. It's the most self-aggrandizing ones who tend to do that.

The rest of us are just writing papers, presenting at conferences, collaborating with other research groups without any interest in putting it all out there on social media.

This whole X versus Bluesky thing is basically irrelevant. Neither of these platforms are good venues for dissemination of scientific research.

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

#167

Post by hdlothia »

kabdib wrote: post #31
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

my dad was an ecologist in the 70s, and did a lot of early climate change stuff (getting ground truth for LandSat, etc.) that's always been a fun conversation

That does sound super interesting.He probably had a real fun time doing science in the 70s.

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

#168

Post by Telemakhos »

falcor84 wrote: post #121
an0malous wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Words have never had stable definitions in politics. Thucydides wrote about that over two thousand years ago, and nothing has charged or will change in that regard.

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

#169

Post by didibus »

bArray wrote: post #113
hdlothia wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like scientists should be explaining to us how the world is, and then other people should use those explanations to try and improve it. Right now I feel like there are a scientists who would hide or discard results if they contradicted their advocacy beliefs,which is a dangerous place to be imo.

[flagged]

What you say is just false. Politicians made and still make policies, that's how it works.

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

#170

Post by Onavo »

tptacek wrote: post #111

I don't understand how Bluesky is going to continue to exist past 2026, based on the sharply declining usage, their headcount, and the amount of funding they've taken. It has apparent value propositions past the social network, but none of those use cases are visibly taking off and none of them appear to be monetizable. The social network itself is what will be evaluated when they go out for more funding. And I don't…

Try lobbying the government or the opposition party to make Bluesky the official platform for all their communications.
Post reply on HN