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

181–190 of 357 posts

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

#181

Post by epistasis »

tptacek wrote: post #171
raincole wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can just Google these things. Nate Silver posted (grim looking) usage numbers --- followers and posters --- just a couple weeks ago. They very publicly raised a $15MM (priced) A round a year ago, after raising what I understood to be a comparable amount of seed funding. There was talk early this year of them raising again at a $700MM valuation, but I don't see a subsequent announcement that that happened. You can…

Saying "you can google it" when the range of online information is massive is not a helpful thing to say. What numbers are you believing and why?

Nate Silver has basically zero juice on Bluesky, people go there to get away from that sort of "expert" that's got a huge profile already but is hard to escape if you are uninterested in his takes.

I mean he'll, take his own word on it, it's not the social network for him!

https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-is-blueskyism

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

#182

Post by tptacek »

epistasis wrote: post #181
tptacek wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can just Google these things. Nate Silver posted (grim looking) usage numbers --- followers and posters --- just a couple weeks ago. They very publicly raised a $15MM (priced) A round a year ago, after raising what I understood to be a comparable amount of seed funding. There was talk early this year of them raising again at a $700MM valuation, but I don't see a subsequent announcement that that happened. You can…

Saying "you can google it" when the range of online information is massive is not a helpful thing to say. What numbers are you believing and why? Nate Silver has basically zero juice on Bluesky, people go there to get away from that sort of "expert" that's got a huge profile already but is hard to escape if you are uninterested in his takes. I mean he'll, take his own word on it, it's not the social network for him!…

What does it matter how much "juice" he has on Bluesky? The numbers are the numbers.

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

#183

Post by sennalen »

tptacek wrote: post #171
raincole wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You can just Google these things. Nate Silver posted (grim looking) usage numbers --- followers and posters --- just a couple weeks ago. They very publicly raised a $15MM (priced) A round a year ago, after raising what I understood to be a comparable amount of seed funding. There was talk early this year of them raising again at a $700MM valuation, but I don't see a subsequent announcement that that happened. You can…

Nate Silver is an ideologue who deeply wants BlueSky to be failing.

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

#184

Post by chroma »

Q6T46nT668w6i3m wrote: post #5

In my experience, the change has been positive. I rarely see feuds on Bluesky and when they happen I find them especially embarrassing because it’s so unusual. I stopped posting on Twitter around the acquisition but kept my account. When I do randomly check my timeline I’m genuinely disturbed by the disinformation and pseudo-science, especially in machine learning.

In general that's true, but it's because on Bluesky, blocking causes the blocked person's replies to be hidden from everyone who views the original post. It's much easier to block than to engage with a contradictory reply (especially if the reply is correct and you're wrong), so disagreement tends to result in a block.

This behavior is common enough that it creates a chilling effect for anyone who disagrees. Why take the time to craft a reply correcting the poster if it will likely be hidden from everyone? And so you end up with echo chambers.

The effect is quite stunning on some topics. For example: Quite a few people on Bluesky believe the Trump assassination attempt in Pennsylvania was staged[1], that the Charlie Kirk assassin's text messages are fake[2][3], and that the recent ICE shooter was a false flag.[4][5][6] Notice the amount of engagement these posts have. Thousands of likes, with little to no disagreement in the replies. The lack of feuding is what allows people to believe these falsehoods.

1. https://bsky.app/profile/jlyncochran.bsky.social/post/3ldy2f...

2. https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3lyzvxijtmc2f

3. https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3lyz22btupk2k

4. https://bsky.app/profile/junlper.beer/post/3lzlxfrqguc2k

5. https://bsky.app/profile/realtexaspaul.com/post/3lzlwg2ueic2...

6. https://bsky.app/profile/gilmored85.bsky.social/post/3lzm53d...

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

#185

Post by Braxton1980 »

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.

If a person is an expert on a topic then it makes sense for them to have a higher probability of being correct.

>And it’s usually some controversial thing that doesn’t have to do with science anyway.

What evidence do you have that most scientists are giving opinions about things unrelated to their expertise and then stating you should trust them more due to their expertise or position?

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

#188

Post by doodlesdev »

marc_io wrote: post #133
altcognito wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, at least here in Brazil, people still find it strange if you say you don't have an Instagram account. There's this idea of being a bit weird for not following this trend.

Brazil is an exception, though! Did you know we are the third country in the world with the largest number of Instagram users? [0]

Social media is very cultural here, so I'm not sure that we are representative of a larger trend in social media acceptance worldwide.

[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/578364/countries-with-mo...

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

#189

Post by Diti »

archagon wrote: post #110
jsheard wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't pretty much everyone using the same instance pretty much defeat the point?

We’re talking about the average user. They’re not going to be particularly passionate about federation. The point, to them, is to have a functioning Twitter-like social network.

The average user starts caring about censorship, AFAIK. And Bluesky has done very nasty ToS changes that only federation would have helped fight against.

But this is off-topic, because the ToS changes are mostly about porn, while this HN submission is about the professional use of Bluesky.

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

#190

Post by CamperBob2 »

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

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists

So you've found a way to say "My job isn't at risk from a vindictive POTUS" in 14 words instead of 9. Great.

Post reply on HN