Live data from Hacker News

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

psypost.org

341–350 of 357 posts

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

#341

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…

Sharply declining usage? I don't see the stats to back that up on https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats Usage has absolutely declined from peak switching periods where inevitibly some users won't stick around, but that's to be expected. Most stats seem to be leveling off (which isn't exactly stable growth either so the rest of your points stand).

> Sharply declining usage? I don't see the stats to back that up on https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats

Odd. Here's another BlueSky stats page, and almost every metric is in the red.

https://bluefacts.app/bluesky-user-growth?t=3m

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

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re going to need to back that up in order for me to take your claim seriously. I’ve always found Nate Silver to be opinionated, sure, but with opinions based on data. (To be clear, I’m not disputing that Silver thinks BlueSky is failing—I’ll take your word for that—I’m disputing that he’s doing so because he had an axe to grind rather than data backing him up.)

It doesn't matter, because nobody is taking Nate Silver's word for anything. That Nate Silver dunks on Bsky is of absolutely no probative value whatsoever.

[dead]

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

#343
post #232

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.

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

The shift from social networks to social media was subtle, and insidious.

Social networks, systems where you talk to your friends, are okay (probably). Social media, where you consume content selected by an algorithm, is not.

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

#344
post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A Bluesky dev has admitted that the "show less/more" items did nothing. It was in the context of supposedly hooking them up to real code at long last, though I've yet to see any practical difference. Anyone who claims they worked all along is not arguing in good faith.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 n…

Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...).

Things like this is what most people saw at the time, resulting in public health officials losing credibility overall. Let’s not whitewash history here.

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 n…

Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance ( https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... ). Things like this is what most people saw at the time, resulting in public health officials losing credibility overall. Let’s not whitewash history here.

None of the people in the article that made those statements are public officials.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does anyone need to invest at all? Why can't Jack Dorsey just run it instead of needing it be a hockey stick start up?

See, that's a good question, but it has an answer: first, they took a priced round, and those investors will need to see a return, and second, when the funding runs out, someone is going to have to put more money in --- substantially more money --- to keep the lights on. What's probably true is that if they found a stable source of revenue they wouldn't have to answer these kinds of questions. But this is just back t…

I’m one of the (independent) board members of Bluesky and I can say with confidence that I don’t have any of these concerns, everyone involved is deeply aligned to the PBC’s purpose of “To develop and drive large-scale adoption of technologies for open and decentralized public conversation.”

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly, Public Health Officials Say Social Justice Matters More Than Social Distance ( https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea... ). Things like this is what most people saw at the time, resulting in public health officials losing credibility overall. Let’s not whitewash history here.

None of the people in the article that made those statements are public officials.

They are “experts”, and the public views them all as public health officials, and consequently they are painted with the same brush.

The difference here is about the reality of how the public views things as opposed to some ideal where everyone goes to the CDC website for guidance.

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

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, that's a good question, but it has an answer: first, they took a priced round, and those investors will need to see a return, and second, when the funding runs out, someone is going to have to put more money in --- substantially more money --- to keep the lights on. What's probably true is that if they found a stable source of revenue they wouldn't have to answer these kinds of questions. But this is just back t…

I’m one of the (independent) board members of Bluesky and I can say with confidence that I don’t have any of these concerns, everyone involved is deeply aligned to the PBC’s purpose of “To develop and drive large-scale adoption of technologies for open and decentralized public conversation.”

None of the concerns I've raised are about alignment. I'm not concerned for Bluesky's investors. I'm concerned about the long-term viability of the platform given its adoption curve and its financing.

If it helps, nothing I'm saying has anything to do with whether ATProto will succeed. ATProto could succeed (and fulfill one possible overarching goal of the PBC) and Bluesky would still not be a long-term viable forum for scientific communication (because it will stop existing in its current form).

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

#350
post #330

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.

All of them though look like they have been pretty level over the last 3 to 4 months.

Level is fine if you're self-sufficient, but scary if you're dependent on raising capital.
Post reply on HN