81–90 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What problem do you think they’re causing that would warrant death threats?
Are they implying that Threads has just ~5 million daily active users? Adam Mosseri shared in the beginning of November that they have 275 million monthly active users. Bluesky meanwhile has 20 million total users. Considering the author hasn't shared a single source for their claim, I find it hard to believe. Realistically he is off by at least an order of magnitude.
Mashable used to be one of my go-to blogs, but I haven't been there in a while. Has it really fallen this far?
Twitter does not need a replacement. There seem to be a popular opinion that it does, but it's not something people are willing to act on. It's a better app than it used to be, overall.
All politics aside (not a minor point for many), Twitter has been made much worse IMHO in the Musk era. They de-prioritize links, prevent 3rd party apps, closed the API, and blocked access for non-logged-in viewing. And a smaller meta-point: changed from an iconic name to a simple non-informative letter (Besides Google and maybe Uber, who have added a popular verb to the lexicon?)
I especially feel this sort of enforced community separation is so prevalent among those who are so reticent to build a border wall, but I'm sure psychology has an explanation somewhere.
Low quality article aside, Threads also had a major spike in usage that quickly dropped off. I could be wrong, but I’m going to guess Bluesky will be the same. They don’t seem to offer anything new/different other than moderation, which I’m not convinced is enough to shift momentum from x to bluesky
Threads had a lot of users sign up when it first launched. Bluesky launched over 18 months ago.
> They don’t seem to offer anything new/different other than moderation, which I’m not convinced is enough to shift momentum from x to bluesky
There are tons of differences. For example, if there are replies in a thread and one of the users blocks the other. Those replies are blocked out for everyone. If you quote post a user you've blocked. That post is blocked out for everyone. There are starter kits that are creating tons of growth in accounts for lots of people so you're not posting to nothing. The engagement is higher, seriously people are posting the same stuff on Twitter and Bluesky and with 10x more on Twitter there getting 2x better engagement on Bluesky. If someone quote posts you and you don't like it, you can remove the post from the quote. You can hide replies in your threads. It has a threaded UI that looks like reddit comment threads.
I think everyone has been waiting for a replacement to emerge and Bluesky has spent a lot of time slowly growing and slowly adding features that it does everything people want from Twitter with more control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with this: if the only thing you allow to pierce the veil is selected based on engagement metrics you just walk away with a shallow view of your opposition. If anything this may entrench your existing views and give you a false sense of intellectual and/or moral superiority. You need to “meet people where they are” and the first type of algorithm just doesn’t do that. It just says “conservatives/liberals r…
Your argument is in support of mine. Separate networks are an interesting legal and software engineering detail, but from the POV of the user, as long as they see what they want to see, they will stay with the network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Never had or seen a death threat. Ever wonder if you might be drawing all of that negative attention yourself. It's hard to admit that you might be the problem. This is victim blaming. It’s wrong and it has no place here or anywhere.
It's inevitable that social media will split up into separate and distinct networks of people who can no longer stand or even undertand the other sociopolitical tribes. All of us sharing a singular global network was an exceptional and ephemeral circumstance.
[flagged]
If you're being ironic there's not much to add, so on the assumption that you meant what you said: Trump's ascendancy is evidence of what OP is saying, not the cause. The coastal elite has been completely incapable of understanding Trump's voters for decades, long before they were Trump voters. Trump hijacked the Republican party and won the presidency (twice now!) because he managed to make these long-neglected voters finally feel understood. We're not going to solve the problem of Trumpism by doubling down on treating these voters like idiots, because that's what got us here in the first place.
[deleted]
It's inevitable that social media will split up into separate and distinct networks of people who can no longer stand or even undertand the other sociopolitical tribes. All of us sharing a singular global network was an exceptional and ephemeral circumstance.
In fact I believe that the present day situation boils down to one thing only: the prioritization of engagement at the cost of all else.
That’s what set us down this road. It incentivizes inflammatory posting that eschews nuance and context and twists and exaggerates the subject matter in order to provoke emotional responses — whether they be angry replies, “dunk” quote-posts, reposts, or even spending a couple extra seconds with the post on screen. Anything to steal away more of your attention and mindshare. Over time, this has polarized people to ever further extremes and normalized disrespect and bickering (as opposed to discussion).
It would be an interesting experiment to see the effects of effectively the polar opposite of twitter, where ragebait and other attention-seeking behaviors are actively punished, with the content that’s most readily surfaced instead being that which is thoughtful, candid, and not emotionally charged.