Live data from Hacker News

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

psypost.org

231–240 of 357 posts

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

#231

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.

I agree that it’s not a sharp decline but zooming out, what I see is absolutely no organic growth at all in the past couple of years. All the increases have been sharp spikes that immediately fall off dramatically, followed by longer, slower periods of decline. It looks like nobody is switching to Bluesky except in a handful of viral events, during which a tonne of people try it out but don’t keep using it. There’s only one upward slope on these graphs, and that stopped in late 2023 – about the time Threads went fully global. These look like very unhealthy stats.

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

#232
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.

The edu-only era of Facebook was good, as well as the preceding livejournal era.

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

#233
post #172

Most of my hard science contacts (physics, biology etc) from my days in student government have moved to Bluesky. Newer academics seem to be starting out there and skipping Twitter entirely. If you have heard of Metcalfe's Law, you'll understand why this is not good for Twitter long term. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law

So Bluesky for academia and X for tech and everyone else. I don’t think X is in trouble. Scientist tend to form their own closed communities anyway.

It's like internet media is reaching a new level of maturity in that it is bifurcating into the tabloids and the serious magazines, like printed media was before.

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why the Fediverse metrics don't count Threads, the single largest AP instance by several orders of magnitude?

Because Threads is Meta's attempt at bullshitting Mastodon users in welcoming a wolf among the herd. Search for "Fedipact": Meta is de facto cut off from many Mastodon instances.

Except the largest Mastodon instance, mastodon.social, does federate with Threads. I'm not even sure if the list you provided even covers most of the top instances either.

It really feels like an "eating your cake and having it too" kinda situation: you get the engagement and interaction with millions of Threads users but you don't have to count them in your decentralization metrics.

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

#236
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His numbers may be bad because people on the website don't like him, not because of something inherent about bsky (other than better taste) Plenty of big accounts have anecdotally said they have much better engagement on bsky than twitter

They're not his numbers . He's just pointing to them!

You didn't point to his numbers so that wasn't clear, but either way, Silver has beef with bsky because he isn't popular there and he likes to whine about it.

The usage numbers I've seen are down from their peak last November but have mostly stabilized at this point. The devs say they have multiple years of runway, and each time there is an exodus from twitter the numbers have a sharp increase and then decline to a stable number higher than they started.

13 months ago there were 200k daily likers and now there are 1.2 million. Yes, that is down from the highest peak directly after the election, but the 1.2 million has been fairly steady for the past ~4 months and if there's one thing you can count on it's Elon doing something stupid to piss off users and cause another user exodus. That one will cause another peak and slow decline but if it's like every other one he's caused the end result will be higher numbers for bsky than before.

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

#237

If only Bluesky could be as decentralised as the Fediverse [0] Trading one corporate overlord for another is not the smartest play. [0] https://arewedecentralizedyet.online/

Opening an account on Mastodon was a pain even for me, a long-time Internet user and a nerd. I'm confronted with a choice of servers, but if I love cheese and golf, do I open my account on the cheese server or the golf server? What will be the disadvantages of choosing one over the other? Instant blocker right in the sign up process that made me actually give up several times. If it was like that for me, imagine how…

> The Fediverse will only be popular if

There's already way more stuff on Mastodon for the hashtags I follow than I can possibly consume. If this is "unpopular", I'm happy with the way things are.

Maybe it _should_ be a little tougher to sign up for than the other mainstream options.

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

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Yeah, there's no centralized algorithm that does it for you,

Bluesky doesn't really present it that way. The default "Discover" feed at least pretends to be exactly that.

> 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

I think this has changed recently. Months ago I tried to actually use Bluesky, and my Discover feed was awful. 90% of my time on the site was muting/blocking or thinking "show more/less like this" did something and it was an miserable experience which nothing seemed to improve except quitting it.

Checking it now, it's dramatically better. Still includes a lot of content I don't want, but less aggressively so, although that seems to largely be that I was gone so far it could be mostly content from accounts I follow.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They do really need to do something about this, I am not on regularly anymore but there was a period where i kept getting weird sexual posts of dudes in diapers, no matter how much i blocked or asked not to see that.

> or asked not to see that

That's part of the problem, I'm not sure that actually does anything.

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> it'll take a couple days of actual effort, but it's extremely easy

If it takes a couple of days of actual effort, then it’s not extremely easy, especially for the average user who can just go to Threads with their existing Instagram account and not be bombarded with furry and diaper porn.

Post reply on HN