41–50 of 80 posts
I found Bluesky to be extremely hostile to AI and mostly far leftists canabalizing each other. I don’t see it as sustainable and fewer people are using it. X is undoubtedly worse but Bluesky doesn’t appear to be the answer.
Can't help but notice arstechnica seems to have an anti-Elon agenda. I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
I found Bluesky to be extremely hostile to AI and mostly far leftists canabalizing each other. I don’t see it as sustainable and fewer people are using it. X is undoubtedly worse but Bluesky doesn’t appear to be the answer.
Can't help but notice arstechnica seems to have an anti-Elon agenda. I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
I found Bluesky to be extremely hostile to AI and mostly far leftists canabalizing each other. I don’t see it as sustainable and fewer people are using it. X is undoubtedly worse but Bluesky doesn’t appear to be the answer.
That… kind of makes sense? It’s logical that applications with significant downside, particularly that which impacts peoples’ livelihood, would get greater questioning and pushback. If anything I’d call into question a platform where nobody is asking these questions and wants to charge ahead with zero regard to potential ramifications.
>They ended up with a final sample size of 813 people. I want BlueSky to succeed but this sampling bias is simply too much to ignore. This comment (by nunobrito) from few days ago on a similar topic is best analysis of this topic. > These news are awfully similar to click-bait stating "the science is settled" by grouping a small set of the group and then pretending it represents the whole. The paper failed both to id…
What is the sampling bias? You dont explain what it could be, and your quote doesn't give any clues about what the bias could be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
X hides discussions. If somebody sends you a link you can't see the discussion without an account and logging in and being extensively tracked. Not sure what you mean about anti-Elon bias. This was straightforward reporting of the truth. If reality has an anti-Elon bias then perhaps it's not bias.
Before the take over you couldn't see the linked tweet at all. (it was not always this way though)
> If you currently try to access Twitter without logging in to your user account, you’ll be unable to see any of the content that was previously available to the wider public. Instead, you’ll meet a Twitter window that asks you to either sign in to the platform or create a new account, effectively blocking you from viewing tweets and user profiles or browsing through threads unless you’re a registered Twitter user.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-u...
It looks like it was pushed through by claiming the site was under attack, and then access was never restored. In any case, it was one of the things that pushed me off X.
Can't help but notice arstechnica seems to have an anti-Elon agenda. I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
X hides discussions. If somebody sends you a link you can't see the discussion without an account and logging in and being extensively tracked. Not sure what you mean about anti-Elon bias. This was straightforward reporting of the truth. If reality has an anti-Elon bias then perhaps it's not bias.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the sampling bias? You dont explain what it could be, and your quote doesn't give any clues about what the bias could be.
The article itself talks about this self-selection/sampling bias due to a minuscule sample size of 813 people. Reducing “science community” to such a small sample is not convincing.
But 813? Why wouldn't that be enough? Basic stats puts that at a very healthy number for most questions, and the researchers don't raise any questions about bias about the number.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is extremely interesting. Didn't know of these stats. Would be great to be able to have twitter, mastodon and bluesky on the same graph (perhaps with different y-axes to allow comparison of their relative trends)
Threads is the one really taking off. Personally I'm not thrilled at Meta and Zuckerberg increasing their stranglehold on social media, but it seems to be the way things are going.