Live data from Hacker News

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

psypost.org

61–70 of 357 posts

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

#61
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Good science requires objective thinking and evidence-based reasoning. Claims must be proven, not accepted based on authority or prima facie evidence.

This is also the definition of good activism.

Absolutely not. A scientist is expected to change their mind when new, counterfactual evidence is presented. Activists push for positions regardless of whether any evidence exists to support their position, and seem to maintain their position even when presented with counterfactual evidence. That is not science. We have a name for it: dogma.

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

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yep, there it is. You’re just upset that they don’t have your opinions.

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.

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

#63
post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

X is not politically neutral, Elon openly talks about recalibrating Grok whenever it says something too liberal like recent discussions about gun violence. Scientists should embrace decentralization and use Mastodon in my opinion. Bluesky will meet the same fate as Twitter and X one day

Yeah x is a mess. When scientists say it's nice to just post about science on bluesky without being called slurs or harassed, I believe them.

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

#64
post #56
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Good science requires objective thinking and evidence-based reasoning. Claims must be proven, not accepted based on authority or prima facie evidence.

Unfortunately, social media or whatever has changed science communication . A scientist can do amazing science, have total evidence based reasoning and then be completely ignored because some quack tells a good story on Rogan.

That speaks more to society than science. We should not expect scientists to fix this problem. It's outside their domain.

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

#65
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 why is it beneficial for you to have and express political opinions but not them? Or are you deliberately doing something harmful here?

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

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. When did this happen?

CDC never said it, a lot of prominent heath officials did though.

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

#67
post #6

It would be nice if scientists started being just scientists again instead of activists. Hopefully being cloistered on bluesky will bring the old vibes back

Simply expressing the fact that climate change is happening is considered “activism” by some folks (and especially on X).

Asking them to “not be activists” is really a request for them to self police their speech in a way that fits their worldview.

This is not restricted to scientists by the way. Just look at the different response to how the NFL handled Charlie Kirk’s death with official moments of silence vs. Colin Kaepernick kneeing for police brutality. One is supported, one is suppressed.

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

#68

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/

They aren't exactly equal evils... and if a federated replacement for Xitter were going to win, I think it already would have. Ease of use (and comprehensibility) are both pretty important in this business, and nobody seems to get that.

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

#69
As a light user who bounced around X, BlueSky, Mastodon, and Threads, I completely believe that scientists are weary of X. It’s increasingly toxic and driven by engagement bait posting (“shitposting” as they call it) where the loudest accounts continuously post provocative takes not because they believe it but because they know it will trigger their followers into debating it. Even the levels.io guy that everyone idolizes as the indie hacker hero is now posting a non-stop stream of factually inaccurate claims and taking swipes at contentious issues like burnout because he knows it gets people talking in his replies.

X seems to know this is a problem. They hired Nikita Bier who is posting claims that the algorithm is being improved to favor people sharing best in class knowledge every day, but the current meta appears to be posting controversial hot takes that are easily argued or debunked. Tricking your followers into fact checking you is a game in itself because it generates engagement and therefore extends reach. This is why some accounts are deliberate exaggerating facts or posting known misinformation now.

That said, I have a hard time believing everyone is migrating to BlueSky instead of simply leaving this type of social media. Bluesky feels relatively dead except for the few accounts playing the BlueSky meta game, which is largely about infighting and creating hyper cliques from what I see.

One account I follow went to BlueSky but then returned to X because he couldn’t stand it. He described BlueSky as the place to go if you wanted to be constantly attacked by people who 98% agree with you. My impression is that it’s a smaller pond where the people who were previously small fish on X see it as their opportunity to fight their way to the top of a smaller food chain. It just feels ugly and mean half the time. I’ve had to unfollow a lot of people on BlueSky who I previously enjoyed on X because they got sucked into the BlueSky toxicity competition and now they’re just taking swipes at other people on BlueSky all day instead of posting info I wanted to see.

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

#70
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also the definition of good activism.

Absolutely not. A scientist is expected to change their mind when new, counterfactual evidence is presented. Activists push for positions regardless of whether any evidence exists to support their position, and seem to maintain their position even when presented with counterfactual evidence. That is not science. We have a name for it: dogma.

So Jonas Salk advocating for getting your child vaccinated against Polio wasn't a scientist? Just a dogmatist? Your definition of activism is foolish
Post reply on HN