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

221–230 of 357 posts

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

#221

Post by nocoolnametom »

packetlost wrote: post #162
jghn wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

You've got three tools, mutes, blocks, and lists. Yeah, there's no centralized algorithm that does it for you, it'll take a couple days of actual effort, but it's extremely easy to prune your main feed into looking how you want it to look. Which is pretty much like how it was to use Twitter a few years ago before everything got algorithmed.

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

#222

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

archagon wrote: post #93
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X/Twitter has never been politically neutral. It's just that the pendulum has swung the other way.

The pendulum has broken out of the clock and is clattering on the floor.

Indeed, every action has an equal and opposite reaction

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

#223

Post by tptacek »

SteveJS wrote: post #209
tptacek wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think what you needed to do here is zoom out. That's a sharply declining chart. I understand that as a Bluesky user the peak and dropoff doesn't hurt the experience. But investors are going to put money in with the expectation of a return and what they're going to look at are the derivatives of the adoption curve: how quickly is it gaining users, and is adoption accelerating?

I zoomed out. It looks like this: "Usage has absolutely declined from peak switching periods where inevitibly some users won't stick around, but that's to be expected" That just isn't a "sharp decline" no matter how much you seem to want to repeat those words.

Last year in November they had around 2.7MM likers. Today it's 1.2MM.

Last year in November they had around 1.3MM posters. Today, 0.65MM.

Followers: 3MM, to 0.4MM today.

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

#224

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

DonHopkins wrote: post #147
hdlothia wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5 . One study says the endorsement had little effect on voting intention but damaged credibility and perception of scientists.

Then why is it that YOU are working so hard to damage the credibility and perception of scientists?

[flagged]

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

#225

Post by philistine »

tptacek wrote: post #223
SteveJS wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I zoomed out. It looks like this: "Usage has absolutely declined from peak switching periods where inevitibly some users won't stick around, but that's to be expected" That just isn't a "sharp decline" no matter how much you seem to want to repeat those words.

Last year in November they had around 2.7MM likers. Today it's 1.2MM. Last year in November they had around 1.3MM posters. Today, 0.65MM. Followers: 3MM, to 0.4MM today.

How does it compare to other social networks like Twitter? Can't compare because they don't offer granular data this detailed? That tells you something.

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

#226

Post by Molitor5901 »

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 think platforms like that will survive on essentially rage and bitterness. People will always flock to platforms like X, Bluesky, iFunny, and others to vent and rage. There's so much anger in nearly every post that I don't see any of it as particularly useful, or a good use of one's time.

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

#227

Post by didntknowyou »

hdlothia wrote: post #19
input_sh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists are allowed to have opinions outside of their work and share them.

It is 100% allowed, I just don't think it's really helpful or beneficial for them or society Especially when they try to lean on their status as scientists in order to try and have their opinions be more influential. The cdc for example saying it's ok to disregard their previous guidance in order to protest for black lives matter is one of these credibility damaging moments that is hard to undo.

so you would prefer to hear opinions from marketers and influencers?

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

#228

Post by hdlothia »

miltonlost wrote: post #62
hdlothia wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... I supported blm and still do. The CDC should have stayed out of it.

The one mention of the CDC in that article doesn't mention anything about it changing guidlines for BLM. So you're lying.

You are right, public health officials instead of cdc would be the better way to phrase it.

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

#229

Post by tptacek »

philistine wrote: post #225
tptacek wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year in November they had around 2.7MM likers. Today it's 1.2MM. Last year in November they had around 1.3MM posters. Today, 0.65MM. Followers: 3MM, to 0.4MM today.

How does it compare to other social networks like Twitter? Can't compare because they don't offer granular data this detailed? That tells you something.

That doesn't matter! In fact, Twitter doing worse while Bluesky usage is dropping probably makes them significantly less investable.

I'm not rooting for them to fail. I use Bluesky. I find Twitter's ownership odious and the platform significantly worse than it was 4 years ago.

But if we're talking about scientific communicators talking about where the future of scientific communication is going to happen, it is relevant whether Bluesky has a long-term future. There's another non-Twitter social network that doesn't operate under this funding pressure!

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

#230

Post by kelipso »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #185
kelipso wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, that’s the typical argument but the problem is that they veer way out of their lane. And their lane is in reality very narrow and academically focused.

When these experts go into politics and activism, their biases show and consequently the credibility of them and their unfortunate colleagues who don’t go into politics get lowered.

> 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?

I don’t live under a rock.

Post reply on HN