Bluesky is far from professional.
Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
321–330 of 357 posts
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#322It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back
Maybe when activists stop pretending to be scientists the scientists can stop being activists.
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't limit who you can follow. That's simply not true. All servers maintain blacklists of other servers they don't like and won't federate with, including mastodon.social: https://mastodon.social/about (last section, "Moderated servers") You could argue that it's normal to block problematic servers, but it's not you the user who gets to define what is problematic, it's your server. Therefore your choice of se…
> Therefore your choice of server may very well prevent you from seeing content you'd like to see. How is this any different than users of different IRC networks being unable to communicate with each other? If I'm on OFTC, I certainly don't complain about not being able to talk to people on Libera.chat. I just....join the server and start talking.
Because IRCs aren't social media platforms? Creating an "account" on an IRC server is trivial, and you don't have a permanent profile or friend lists, etc
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people…
>What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests…
>at least they claim to) so it's certainly within their lane
Yes. Which is what this discussion I replied to was about. The claim was experts using their status to claim expertise in opinions unrelated to their field, not whether they changed their opinions on subjects they are experts at.
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When these experts go into politics and activism What if the issue is related to their expertise? Veering out of the lane implies they start offering their opinion about a topic that has nothing to do with their field after discussing one that does without making a clear disclaimer >credibility of them and their unfortunate colleague It's wrong to judge all due to the actions of some. This is a huge flaw of people…
>What if the issue is related to their expertise? NTA but I think one example which deserves far more scrutiny than it gets is all the public health experts[1] in the early months of COVID who were telling people to stay inside, don't gather in groups even if you're outside, don't go to church etc only to suddenly change their minds and say that gathering in large groups is actually very safe as soon as the protests…
>but the abrupt change in policy was obviously motivated by their political leanings
March - The CDC publishes Covid guidelines on mass gathering in March “Interim Guidance: Get Your Mass Gatherings or Large Community Events Ready for COVID-19”
May 26th - The George Floyd protests start
June 4th - The CDC directory tells congress he fears the protests could be a Covid seeding event [1]
June 12th - The CDC publishes new Covid guidelines on mass gatherings [2] due to the protests
------------------------------
You claim the change from the CDC was abrupt.
1. The CDC already had guidelines in place for mass gatherings before the protest started so new guidelines aren't abrupt and the new guidelines came out 16 days after the protests started
2. The Floyd protests were very emotional as indicated by rioting and arson in some cities. The CDC can't stop protestors but it can attempt to reduce the spread of Covid by offering updated guidelines that take into account the protests
For example, the director brought up tear gas as it would cause more coughing [same hearing as [1]] as something specific to protests
------------------------------
You also claimed there was a political aspect to it, that it was convenient the CDC issued those guidelines.
1. The director specifically stated that the protests only increased the possibility of Covid spreading. by calling them a potential seeding event.
2. The director at the time, Robert Redfield, is a Republican appointed by Trump in 2018.
[1]“I do think there is a potential, unfortunately, for this to be a seeding event" [referring to the protests] Robert Redfield, House Appropriations hearing, June 4th 2020
[2] CDC "Considerations for events and gatherings"
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Therefore your choice of server may very well prevent you from seeing content you'd like to see. How is this any different than users of different IRC networks being unable to communicate with each other? If I'm on OFTC, I certainly don't complain about not being able to talk to people on Libera.chat. I just....join the server and start talking.
Because IRCs aren't social media platforms? Creating an "account" on an IRC server is trivial, and you don't have a permanent profile or friend lists, etc
Speak for yourself, but filling out a web-based form that asks for your desired username, password, and e-mail address is much easier than crafting a special registration request private message to an IRC services bot.
You solve the problem of multiple servers on Mastodon the same way you do on IRC - with a Mastodon client. If anything, it's _much_ easier to keep track of multiple accounts on Mastodon than it is on IRC.
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#327Is this thread flagged by the Musk bots? I don't see how the argument that this isn't tech related can fly here.
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#328X 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.
For years I've tried switching full time to DDG and always found myself typing !g so much that I gave up and went back to Google. For the past year and a half or so it's finally stuck and I cringe it I'm on a different device and accidentally get a Google result. It's become everything it wasn't at launch.
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#329I see X / Bluesky as a digital representation of the societal split that has happened in the US. The dynamic that unfolded is the same one that causes wars in the real world - two ideologies too at odds to coexist in the same space. In the real world, one ends up destroying the other. The digital world has the convenient ability to spawn a new space and the other side just migrated en mass to it.
Re: Scientists say X has lost its professional edge and Bluesky is taking its place
#330Earlier 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.
All of them though look like they have been pretty level over the last 3 to 4 months.