>The social media site that many sought as an alternative to X fosters groupthink and pointless activism.
I'm not sure what else someone would expect from modern social media. People keep thinking that the problem with the internet is that people are falling into the "wrong" crowd, or getting the "wrong" ideas. This is very old fashioned thinking and relies on real-world intuition. (imagine a good kid who fell into a bad group of friends and fell to a life of crime. This is effectively what a lot of people seem to think happens with online extremism.) The problem with extremism online is the methods of communication themselves.
Modern social media works by grouping and virally spreading ideas. This is similar in some ways to how communication has historically worked, except the pace and the reach does weird things to people. I'd argue that when you can share and like and there's an algorithmic feed, you're _always_ going to see moves towards extremism, group think, virality, outrage, etc. It's inherent to how these technologies work. In real-world communities, these effects are at play, but they are tempered by other factors. For example, just try going on a political rant against the person at who's home you're eating dinner. You wouldn't do it, you wouldn't want to be rude, to be a bad guest. But blurting out something outrageous or extreme online carries no such feedback. Combine that with a format that puts a LOT of people in contact with each other and then surfaces anything that is "engaging" and you're going to get the same sort of thing you have on Twitter / X.
The saddest part of the Twitter exodus post-Musk is that a lot of people seem to think that Twitter was a great place until Musk ruined it. It had a lot of the same sort of problems and evils, but perhaps for different targets and topics.
Twitter was extremely valuable to me pre-Musk. I followed a lot of creative and technical people doing work I felt was great or valuable, and often it gave me insight into trends well before they occurred. It also made accessible brief discussions with people who normally were difficult to reach.
My own personal work was interesting enough to others that the right people shared it and I ended up with some major executives and founders in tech following my small account just because they found my work interesting. I also got many job offers just through sharing my work and having positive discussions with people.
Now so much of that is destroyed. The algorithm rarely surfaces novel and interesting things from people you don't yet follow, it instead surfaces blue-check accounts trying to be full time influencers. If a large account posts something you can't add insight to the conversation because your comment will be far below blue check accounts responding with arbitrary nonsense for engagement farming.
Many of the most interesting people on the platform have bailed out because there's just so much toxicity and distracting stress tolerated on the platform now, and no way to self-moderate it beyond ineffectually banning individual accounts.
Twitter was imperfect before Musk, but still extremely valuable in my circle. Now I feel Musk views the platform primarily as a way to manipulate social and political outcomes rather than a place that enriches its users.
This was during the same era that you had many people losing their jobs or reputations because of outrage mobs on the platform. I wouldn't claim that Twitter had no positive aspects at all, but that the negatives far outweighed the positive. (and yes, the outrage mobs are at least just as bad, potentially worse, but just pointed at different targets.)
The toxicity that you're decrying was also there before, maybe just not in your circles or aimed at you.
I have a harm time taking the submission at face value. It's wild to me to see MSNBC / MS NOW casting such stones.
There doesn't seem to be any attempt there to find merit. Well other than the brief second paragraph, which just notes:
> and I especially enjoy fewer neo-Nazis advocating violence responding to my posts.
There's no looking at how there's a public API, there's no looking at how there are other apps all working on atproto. They don't cite any of the bad experiences where they felt wronged. It's a hit piece.
> Bluesky promotes groupthink. It’s easy to feel an illusory sense of consensus when most everyone seemingly agrees on a surface level on who the villains are. But political thinking cannot be refined without intense interrogation, friction and dissent. Bluesky’s mainstream scene is cocooned, insulated against sustained confrontation from either its left or its right.
And it's just wrong. I love this challenge here, I think this speaks to an amazing virtuous and right stance. But I see it all the time. There is a lot of agreeing about how wild the Supreme Court has been in tearing down hundreds of years of law, how ridiculously off the map the GOP is, how batshit ludicrous this grifter pedophile in the white house is. But that's all true actually? And I do see a lot of debate and engagement and questioning, discussion of topics. Sometimes it is a contest of the loudest typer winning, but overall I find Bluesky really far more interested in good engagement and discussion, better at looking for signal than anywhere else. (And we have Will Stancil posts to debate, lol.)
There's a non-zero chance that Bluesky feels boring because it's actually a somewhat reasonable place, with reasonable people. X wants to be radical and extreme. Rage bait and madness keep people engaged. A lot. It's an advantage for a site to be unreasonable alas. Oh and the new management keeps promoting the nazis & is an incredible dirtbag gutter racist & provoker. Who builds CSAM making AI.
It's not going to have the same "diverse" spirit, Zeeshan Aleem. You go on and on throwing dirt. It's unengaged in that activity, doing malice out of hand without actually building the case. I struggle to consider the article in good faith. This feels like propoganda. It feels manufactured.
I have accounts on Twitter, Mastodon, and Bluesky. I can get an okayish experience on any of them by being selective about who I follow, but they vary in how much I have to fight the software.
On Twitter, I have to fight it the most. It’s possible to get a reverse-chronological feed via search, using the realtwitter redirect. Also, once you get past the the actual replies to a post, it adds random crap, so you have to look for that and stop reading there. I expect it to get worse due to the people running it having terrible taste. (For example, Grok integration.) But there are still some accounts I like reading, so I put up with it.
I couldn’t figure out which Mastodon server to join and ended up on mastodon.social on the third try. I follow a few people I like. It’s pretty chill. I don’t put much effort into it anymore.
I like where they’re going with the Bluesky software and sometimes the people who run it are funny. I sometimes think about writing software that builds on it. Yes, the political activists are annoying, but I don’t find them all that hard to avoid. The replies to popular accounts used to be pretty bad, but they shipped an update that helped. It’s still hard to find new people worth following, but I’m slowly finding a few. There is a new “For You” feed that some guy runs on his gamer machine that is okayish, at least for the top few posts.
I really tried to like Bluesky. Even wrote a minimal PDS to help gain a technical understanding of the platform.
In the end though I found the social aspect was a similar experience to what the author of this piece describes. Boring, repetitive, and full of a particular type of person I have no desire to interact with.
So I went back to X, which for all its flaws at least has interesting content and, perhaps most importantly, has no equivalent to Bluesky's "nuclear block", so you can follow, and even participate in, divisive discussions where someone has been blocked.
Blocking is basically abuse nowadays in form of “coward block”. Very common in reddit, around topics about EVs (interestingly many of their usernames follow same pattern which makes me think these are malicious bots).
Basically they’ll respond to your comment with a falsehood and block you so you can’t respond (and most times won’t even see the response). Comment stays up for rest of the gang to brigade on.
That was Reddit's choice. Blocking used to be a mute function. Then in 2021 or so they changed it to "you can't participate in a conservation I'm having at any point in the chain." Everyone said it was a bad idea and one post even demonstrated how easy it'd be to abuse such a function:https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/sdcsx3/test...
Awful idea.
All that said: Twitter stule threads are much more ephemeral. So a block isn't as impactful there.
Bluesky is less about dopamine hits and pointless online debate. X is TikTok'ified dopamine hit 'discussion'.
I explore music intentionally. If I firehosed random music nonstop I’d burn out. Do that with social media randos, with an even lower quality bar? Nope. No one tells people they “shouldn’t curate music, just listen to whatever randomly plays.”
No media/person is owed attention. Blocking and shaping my experience is being rational/intentional, not cowardly. Yours is the same logic behind removing YouTube dislikes and replacing Netflix’s old, user-shaped system with today’s garbage algo. Suffer through piles of trash on the off chance something good appears. Again no. I have limited attention.
I deliberately seek out well-reasoned, articulated opposing views in formats that actually support learning and understanding.
Short-form media is useful for discovering topics, not for POV growth. The format itself doesn’t support meaningful discussion or exposition. It's 'short form'. It gets eyeballs so people try to take advantage of the reach and kinda shoe horn stuff in, but the format sucks for that.
> So I went back to X, which for all its flaws at least has interesting content and, perhaps most importantly, has no equivalent to Bluesky's "nuclear block", so you can follow, and even participate in, divisive discussions where someone has been blocked.
In other words you agree with Musk's reasons for buying Twitter and opening the place up to other voices than just those which fled to places like BS. Good for you to acknowledge this and to realise that just being in the same place - virtual or physical - with others who you happen to disagree with does not 'taint' the place nor does it make it impossible to interact with most of them except for the looney fringes. BS was bound to end up like it did just like e.g. Gab ended up the way it did: it attracted those fringes, the I-support-the-current-thing types, the follow-the-leader factions, the I-am-very-special-and-you-should-venerate-me crowds. Some of them remained on or returned to what is now X where they do their thing but there's not enough of them to set the tone so you can ignore them.
>just being in the same place - virtual or physical - with others who you happen to disagree with does not 'taint' the place nor does it make it impossible to interact with most of them except for the looney fringes
Unfortunately, my line of work attracts the Looney fringes. So I withdrew from most mainstream stuff as I saw the above metaphor happen in real time over the span of a decade. Good for you if you are in a more tame profession/hobby (or perhaps, you're a part of it. In that case, condolences).
Do you actually believe that, say, Barack Obama [1] or Pope Leo XIV [2] are nazis? If the answer is "yes" you may have more in common with MAGA looney fringes than you think.
It is the 'democrat' looney fringe, not the MAGA looney fringe which labels everyone a nazi so I suspect that someone who labels the mentioned individuals as such is more likely to be part of the former fringe than of the latter. Had they been part of the latter the label would have been 'commie' or something along those lines.
Ah yes, those scary nazi's who, if the media and many of those influenced by them are to be believed have swamped the streets together with fascists and otherwise-scarily-labelled people.
That's the problem with labelling anyone you don't like a nazi, fascist, racist, homophobe, 'trans'phobe, etc. By the time you're done labelling everyone outside your narrow corridor of allowed opinions with those scary labels you'll find that most people carry at least one of them and as such have gotten used to those terms. Nazi? Well, given that my neighbour - nice guy, helps out when needed, doesn't bother anyone but was called such because he did not want his daughter to share a bathroom with that weird punk in a dress - and my uncle - put a Trump sign in his front yard - and my colleague - drives a truck - seem to be nazi's I guess it is alright to be a nazi nowadays?
I cam only hope that you, being in such a scary profession/hobby that you have felt the need to withdraw from most mainstream stuff do not make the mistake of labelling everyone outside your narrow window of allowed opinions with these scary labels. Or, perhaps, you do, in that case I won't send condolences 'cause you're part of the problem.
I think if you’re going to complain about how mean and unfair the progressives are to you then you should have to include a few examples of the posts that provoked their ire.
Like any social media site there are people on bluesky I find annoying, but I just block them. It’s even got official support for blocklists maintained by others if you are into that.
Bluesky is far from perfect, but I think you need a realistic comparison to other social media networks. Twitter is far more toxic if you are unable to curate your feed. Mastodon has a nice community, especially for tech, but lacks breadth.
There is a core group at Bluesky of people that left Twitter and they have an obvious slant, but I really don’t see this issue making the network worse than any other and only requires you to curate your feed like you have to do on every network.
Was there a magic time in social media when you couldn't make blanket statements about "groupthink"?
Granted I'm also skeptical of that term and others. I find people will put it on anything they see that they don't like in order to discount it, such as "those people only think that because of groupthink" but you don't know those people...
It's a good place for me for posting photos and links but I have an absolute policy against following anyone who says anything about politics, gender, chronic diseases, disability, or anything negative in their profile. I'd be doing engagement farming and probably have 15k followers now if it didn't raise my blood pressure to look at random profiles.
I feel Mastodon is a nicer place these days because the worst tranche of Mastodonsters seemed to have migrated to Bluesky.
It is one thing to be disabled, it is another thing to be "diss abled" and be continuously angry about it. Same thing about people who have fibromyalgia, chronic lyme, etc. I mean, my wife has a good friend who has fibro and she is cool but the people I find online who first and foremost want to talk about their health challenges seem to build an identity and find meaning around it.
For instance you find a lot of people on Mastodon who complain that people don't put ALT text on images but I work really hard to write good ALT text for my photos and people aren't thankful for that.
I don't see the mentioned categories of inherently offensive but on platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon I see them as associated with emotional negativity.
>the people I find online who first and foremost want to talk about their health challenges seem to build an identity and find meaning around it.
Don't see anything wrong with that. The squeaky grease gets the wheel, after all. So people like that lead to more accessibility options, or awareness to fund initiatives to hell solve those issues for future generations.
>you find a lot of people on Mastodon who complain that people don't put ALT text on images but I work really hard to write good ALT text for my photos and people aren't thankful for that.
Well that's just our society. We don't get thanked for what is "expected" of us. Only punished for our shortcomings. Media reflects reality in that case.
Well if that’s your attitude it is no wonder you feel hated and marginalized and not getting what you want. In successful relationships you show gratitude much more often than you complain.
On Mastodon I find a lot of people who do the work of running servers are pretty steamed about all the hateful and demanding people on that platform. They don’t usually talk about it because they don’t want to get dogpiled, but it comes up often when I get into conversations with those people.
Wow Paul. That's a pretty mean spirited viewpoint.
I will think of this when I see your name, and think differently of you. You are quite active, and I'm sad to have seen such a base mena character. You have the right to pick your filters, even if I think that's crass & ridiculous to say "no politics" no advocacy. It's unclear and really shitty IMO to cast such nasty vague aspertions as "worst tranche of Mastodonsters" though. Just saying incredibly nasty things that mean nothing clear & that just cast the worst most ungenerous light. Dude!
Right now I am sure there are millions of posts about whatever happened in Venezeula last night. None of these people have any actual information, it doesn't have any value as "news" -- I'll get more out of reading about it in The Economist next week if not other papers. Sure it is a signification that other people are angry and I can't blame them for being angry but if I get angry it doesn't accomplish anything. It's like you're in an airplane at 40k feet that just sprung a leak and you need to put the oxygen mask on yourself before you can take care of the people around you.
I'm going to argue that those feelings of anger are self-destructive and don't lead to effective activism or positive change in the world. Emotions are contagious
People can post all the politics they like and some of it is going to get in my feed but there are a lot of people who post 20 angry things about Trump a day and nothing good is going to come out of following people like that. I am interested in activism on the issues of: (1) Gen Z's social disconnectedness, (2) an "othering" style of activism on the left that helps the right win, (3) subverting the "trauma theory" that encourages people to build identities around marginalization (e.g. "diss abled" people), (4) recognition of the common (5-10%) condition of schizotypy which is now misdiagnosed as ADHD, autism and other fashionable conditions, and (5) getting our economy and technology aligned with our environment.
Fwiw you come across as angry (tho not mean) in this stack. I am aligned with you on each and every enum. but maybe I'm too exotic (+ not in the thick of it)
(1) It's hard not to think about angry people for me and not get angry because I am involved in humanity and emotions are contagious. It's why I have to limit my exposure to angry people.
(2) I've had phases of my life where activism has been 30-100% of my activity so I've had a lot of experience talking to people door to door, tabling, giving speeches, convincing people to run for public office, going to meetings of different groups to build bridges, etc. (... with that emotional sensitivity!)
I've given many talks where the crowd was excited and other times been showed the door early and got harsh corrections. I know how people respond to messages when I deliver them and when others deliver them. For that matter I work in the social sciences department with survey data and I'm well read in political science even if I have to defer to the experts at work about it.
So I know if you're going to talk about "white privilege" you might as well mortgage all your future earnings and give them straight to the Ku Klux Klan. I'm deeply offended when "woke" people act as if teaching elementary school students the difference between "equity" and "equality" is going to do anything about a difficult problem such as racism. And I think strident transgenderism has made expressing your gender in any unconventional way more and not less dangerous in the last 20 years.
I'm angry about left-wing slacktivism precisely because I care about the things that they say they care for.
I'm just as terrified of going around in circles as you are -- I'm guessing that's where some of the anger comes from-- but I've no relevant expertise/experience to stay grounded.
Prioritisation is hard. Easier to solve tech-> economics-> racism (in that order, but smh folks mix it up, because racism feels __DEAREST[0]__ -- thanks but no thanks globalsocial media-- and the others not so much?)
[0]So different than opiate in action yet so similar in effect
>I'm going to argue that those feelings of anger are self-destructive and don't lead to effective activism or positive change in the world.
I challenge you to find one societal feat in history that was achieved without any violence nor abuse whatsoever. You're arguing for an ideal humanity hasn't achieved yet,and may never achieve at this rate.
Sadly, no. These are the kinds of people that an article like "bluesky is not a good place" appeals to. Aka the ones who are not the ones seeking Bluesky to get away from such close minded folk.
In the mid/late 2000s when the big social media sites were rising people posted harmless inane status updates about nothing, just testing out the potential of the technology. This eventually evolved into tried and true methods of earning engagement from the platform in the most cynical and exploitative ways possible, leading to things like the entire Buzzfeed clickbait journalism transformation.
You can't recreate how social media used to be because people know how to exploit it now, there's no going back. You couldn't recreate Google at the turn of the millennium with the PageRank algorithm because of how SEO was gamed, so it's obvious why these twitter clones keep stumbling reimplementing the same tech.
This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy. There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely. There’s nothing stopping you from helping build the community you desire. You just want the work done for you. Stop complaining about it and make it happen.
The tools are there to make it what you want, it is light years ahead of the other platform. Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination.
> This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy
Which of the many backed and well thought out points did you find lazy?
> There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely
Not sure you read the article, but his point is that there's nothing to curate. It's full of a certain type of person, and not much else. I can attest to this too.
> Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination
I have no nostalgia for Twitter, but I do remember what it used to be like (way back when you used to SMS in your tweets!). It was a fun place with random, sometimes interesting, sometimes thoughtful, most times funny and inane posts. That's not nostalgia, that's how it was.
Subjective kvetching about a social media platform that is totally open to analysis, without providing any numbers at all seems like a singular failure of journalism. A news site like MS Now has the resources to do that, but evidently not the editorial decision-making.
I don't understand why people expected Bluesky to be different.
Even if it's possible for individuals to curate a positive experience for themselves, at a population level, it's still a corrosive, addictive, reductive medium. The incentives are the same. You can't outrun McLuhan.
Bluesky, Mastodon, Truth Social, Threads, etc. only work as long as users feel like they're surrounded by safe ideas and allies. None of it scales. It only works in echo-chamber mode.
Venting is important too. Especially on topics you might feel alienated on by your physical community. Kids have less places to go than ever and adults are lonlier than ever, so they will find other means to fill that social void.
I stick with tech news and the creator space on social media, and while I could very well be doing something fantastically wrong, it is hard for me to find on Bluesky when compared to Mastodon and X.
All these years later, and nothing has replicated what Google Plus accidentally pulled off.
I really enjoy Bluesky a lot, but I agree that there's not enough tech news for my taste.
I do follow a bunch of tech news outlets (including many HN bots), and that works. But there is very little engagement, few likes and few comments. I'd like to see more of what others think. My experience on Twitter was that often these comments suck and aren't thoughtful, but there are some gems, some really enriching, and also that it was still useful for networking & finding those other interesting people out there.
Mastodon seems to have gotten most of the devs. But they don't have a ton of tech news either. And honestly there's just so little interesting development of Mastodon / ActivityPub. Where-as there are really neat amazing not hard to do cute apps and experiences happening with atproto / Bluesky. It's a weird bifurcation of not that technical sometimes but also technical about itself & very active about itself.
The stuff Nate Silver is concerned about has nothing to do with being an active, good-faith, contributing member of a social network and everything to do with being a writer trying to sell his writing and expecting to sit in a privileged position of respect above the hoi paloi simply because he founded a glorified popular blog. He's salty about Bluesky because he couldn't figure out how to engagement farm there like he did on Twitter, so when people got upset at his click bait tactics he table-flipped and called the whole endeavor doomed.
As I often try to tell my mother, if there are a lot of people who have a problem with you, maybe you should seek out the common denominator.
The engagement farming isnt difficult if you focus on it. It simply requires you to... Actively participate in discussions and topics. Harder to automate than spamming blog links, and that's great.
Also, a common saying for your 2nd paragraph: "If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe it’s time to check your shoes"
I do not use twitter/x, I do not use bluesky and I feel like I am dodging a lot of non anonymous people with uwarranted self importance.
I guarantee you that you will be happier if you avoid nom anonymous people with unwarranted self importance im general and online discussion connected to emotional topics specifically.
Anything technically interesting will appear on hacker news and other worldy news I can get by a quick daily check of my favorite news pages.
>Anything technically interesting will appear on hacker news
Sadly there's not a huge gamedev community here. So I do venture to the mainstream sites to peruse most gaming news. This is especially the case with the indie community that pretty much stick to the Twitterverse and Discord.
> There is also little possibility for political persuasion on Bluesky, which has a user base that’s a fraction of the size of X’s, and has far fewer news influencers.
Well, yeah—that’s a big part of why I’m there instead of on Twitter. But that’s a feature, not a bug.
My X / Twitter account is 17 years old. I made it 2 years after the website was founded, and for a long time I thought Twitter was the most personally positive and professionally valuable social media website I participated in.
Often when I wanted to research a niche technical topic I would search for it on Twitter, or tweet about it and see who in my network knew more. Often I would see individuals with niche followings say incredibly insightful or valuable stuff years before other people were saying it. I also had a bunch of professional connections form on Twitter along with many job opportunities I could have pursued.
Now I view X as having destroyed nearly all of that. The system is so setup to reward rage-bait and slop that even if I try to curate my experience for it the meaningful individuals get drowned out. The algorithm and all the actions taken on the website seem more about creating a social manipulation machine for Musk than enriching its users, and as a result many of the most thoughtful and valuable people have scattered away from the platform.
I'm all for diversity of thought, but X under Musk is about non-transparent algorithmic manipulation of speech and manipulating emergent behavior to achieve political goals. It is one thing to unban people, but it's another thing to intentionally break all tools (like ban lists) that enable people to self moderate. Musk's X amplifies certain speech and then disempowers people who try to attain higher quality more productive discourse.
The watershed event that caused Musk to buy Twitter was when Twitter banned the Babylon Bee for making a joke about Katlyn Jenner.
Most left leaning people were blind to the increasingly censorious management of old Twitter. It had been ramping up pretty aggressively though up to that point.
Personally I haven’t noticed the algorithm disrupt my usage of X. I follow interesting makers and tech type people, and my feed is mostly stuff aligned with my interests. I didn't have the same network/professional usage you’re describing so maybe that’s the main difference for me.
As a way of staying informed and entertained it is better to me than old Twitter. But perhaps you are right as a way of networking or collaborating maybe it’s different now, idk because I never used it like that.
It was not a Jenner joke: "The Babylon Bee's Man of the Year Is Rachel Levine" was the tweet that got them banned. Cringey but not remotely ban-worthy imho.
The context being that USA Today had celebrated Levine as one of its "Women of the Year".
Or as the Babylon Bee put it:
"Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."
Far too blasphemous for Twitter's censors at the time.
"Groupthink"... Uh, you're free to form your own groups and say what you want. There are a few old-school conservatives I follow on Blue Sky. They're clearly not the mainstream there, but they do exist.
It sure beats the other site where a billionaire leans on the algorithm to give a big voice to all kinds of wretched stuff.
I literally just want a place that doesn't unnecessarily censor, that works on a technical level. Left/right politics aside. If you're being organic it shouldn't be a problem regardless of who ends up being correct about something
This is my problem with Reddit (with shared mods, and sometimes the site itself) and even Youtube with their AI deleting comments. It's preferential. It's applying one single standard of "misinformation" and sticking everyone else with it
(Example: "covid is an incredibly deadly disease, everyone has to get vaccinated". But credible epidemiologists - yes, Wikipedia, credible epidemiologists - like John Ioannidis will tell you we're being lied to, effectively. That's no reason to start banning people)
I want to enjoy Bluesky from a position of a thing that doesn't kill you via the algorithm, among other things
Edit: downvoting me does absolutely not make me wrong. It is incredibly concerning that this is the hive mind. I really hope you don't work at the big tech companies
You're stating an opinion, it is not wrong nor right ny definition.
And honestly, that sort of swipe makes me wary on what your lens of "censorship" is. Your post is still readable, albeit slightly less due to the Downvoting format.
I immediately got -4 within the first minute of posting it. It was just slightly irritating, I know we're not meant to comment on downvotes. But there's 0 critical thinking behind the people who do that (and they've also accured enough karma to give downvotes in the first place)
Covid censorship was a ridiculous boondoggle and it's time everyone came to terms with it. It wasn't "misinformation". Like, at all
And while we're on the subject of Musk and Twitter it feels like architectually he did destroy it but I'd also like to point out that he told one of the authors of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration that he'd been put on a trends blacklist - old Twitter was banning real doctors for real information, and that's just covid, never mind outside of that
That has to count for something. I share the concern about Elon. He's not pleasant. And yet even by accident he exposed a lot of what was going on? But if you stick to the mainstream views of everything or the Times or whatever then you won't be at all sympathetic. You'll just say "Ah yes, good. They removed things. That is proper, because those things were misinformation"
>The social media site that many sought as an alternative to X fosters groupthink and pointless activism.
I'm not sure what else someone would expect from modern social media. People keep thinking that the problem with the internet is that people are falling into the "wrong" crowd, or getting the "wrong" ideas. This is very old fashioned thinking and relies on real-world intuition. (imagine a good kid who fell into a bad group of friends and fell to a life of crime. This is effectively what a lot of people seem to think happens with online extremism.) The problem with extremism online is the methods of communication themselves.
Modern social media works by grouping and virally spreading ideas. This is similar in some ways to how communication has historically worked, except the pace and the reach does weird things to people. I'd argue that when you can share and like and there's an algorithmic feed, you're _always_ going to see moves towards extremism, group think, virality, outrage, etc. It's inherent to how these technologies work. In real-world communities, these effects are at play, but they are tempered by other factors. For example, just try going on a political rant against the person at who's home you're eating dinner. You wouldn't do it, you wouldn't want to be rude, to be a bad guest. But blurting out something outrageous or extreme online carries no such feedback. Combine that with a format that puts a LOT of people in contact with each other and then surfaces anything that is "engaging" and you're going to get the same sort of thing you have on Twitter / X.
The saddest part of the Twitter exodus post-Musk is that a lot of people seem to think that Twitter was a great place until Musk ruined it. It had a lot of the same sort of problems and evils, but perhaps for different targets and topics.
Twitter was extremely valuable to me pre-Musk. I followed a lot of creative and technical people doing work I felt was great or valuable, and often it gave me insight into trends well before they occurred. It also made accessible brief discussions with people who normally were difficult to reach.
My own personal work was interesting enough to others that the right people shared it and I ended up with some major executives and founders in tech following my small account just because they found my work interesting. I also got many job offers just through sharing my work and having positive discussions with people.
Now so much of that is destroyed. The algorithm rarely surfaces novel and interesting things from people you don't yet follow, it instead surfaces blue-check accounts trying to be full time influencers. If a large account posts something you can't add insight to the conversation because your comment will be far below blue check accounts responding with arbitrary nonsense for engagement farming.
Many of the most interesting people on the platform have bailed out because there's just so much toxicity and distracting stress tolerated on the platform now, and no way to self-moderate it beyond ineffectually banning individual accounts.
Twitter was imperfect before Musk, but still extremely valuable in my circle. Now I feel Musk views the platform primarily as a way to manipulate social and political outcomes rather than a place that enriches its users.
>I also got many job offers
This was during the same era that you had many people losing their jobs or reputations because of outrage mobs on the platform. I wouldn't claim that Twitter had no positive aspects at all, but that the negatives far outweighed the positive. (and yes, the outrage mobs are at least just as bad, potentially worse, but just pointed at different targets.)
The toxicity that you're decrying was also there before, maybe just not in your circles or aimed at you.
But people who destroyed it are your buddies who left.
Also peacemakers who posted offending content to break moderation. And once it worked - “look, they are the bad guys!!”
I have a harm time taking the submission at face value. It's wild to me to see MSNBC / MS NOW casting such stones.
There doesn't seem to be any attempt there to find merit. Well other than the brief second paragraph, which just notes:
> and I especially enjoy fewer neo-Nazis advocating violence responding to my posts.
There's no looking at how there's a public API, there's no looking at how there are other apps all working on atproto. They don't cite any of the bad experiences where they felt wronged. It's a hit piece.
> Bluesky promotes groupthink. It’s easy to feel an illusory sense of consensus when most everyone seemingly agrees on a surface level on who the villains are. But political thinking cannot be refined without intense interrogation, friction and dissent. Bluesky’s mainstream scene is cocooned, insulated against sustained confrontation from either its left or its right.
And it's just wrong. I love this challenge here, I think this speaks to an amazing virtuous and right stance. But I see it all the time. There is a lot of agreeing about how wild the Supreme Court has been in tearing down hundreds of years of law, how ridiculously off the map the GOP is, how batshit ludicrous this grifter pedophile in the white house is. But that's all true actually? And I do see a lot of debate and engagement and questioning, discussion of topics. Sometimes it is a contest of the loudest typer winning, but overall I find Bluesky really far more interested in good engagement and discussion, better at looking for signal than anywhere else. (And we have Will Stancil posts to debate, lol.)
There's a non-zero chance that Bluesky feels boring because it's actually a somewhat reasonable place, with reasonable people. X wants to be radical and extreme. Rage bait and madness keep people engaged. A lot. It's an advantage for a site to be unreasonable alas. Oh and the new management keeps promoting the nazis & is an incredible dirtbag gutter racist & provoker. Who builds CSAM making AI.
It's not going to have the same "diverse" spirit, Zeeshan Aleem. You go on and on throwing dirt. It's unengaged in that activity, doing malice out of hand without actually building the case. I struggle to consider the article in good faith. This feels like propoganda. It feels manufactured.
I have accounts on Twitter, Mastodon, and Bluesky. I can get an okayish experience on any of them by being selective about who I follow, but they vary in how much I have to fight the software.
On Twitter, I have to fight it the most. It’s possible to get a reverse-chronological feed via search, using the realtwitter redirect. Also, once you get past the the actual replies to a post, it adds random crap, so you have to look for that and stop reading there. I expect it to get worse due to the people running it having terrible taste. (For example, Grok integration.) But there are still some accounts I like reading, so I put up with it.
I couldn’t figure out which Mastodon server to join and ended up on mastodon.social on the third try. I follow a few people I like. It’s pretty chill. I don’t put much effort into it anymore.
I like where they’re going with the Bluesky software and sometimes the people who run it are funny. I sometimes think about writing software that builds on it. Yes, the political activists are annoying, but I don’t find them all that hard to avoid. The replies to popular accounts used to be pretty bad, but they shipped an update that helped. It’s still hard to find new people worth following, but I’m slowly finding a few. There is a new “For You” feed that some guy runs on his gamer machine that is okayish, at least for the top few posts.
There is a big Following tab on top of twitter. Click on that and it shows reverse-chronological feed of everybody you follow.
Good point. But I compared the two and they’re not quite the same. The regular “Following” tab includes reposts and the one based on a search doesn’t.
I guess it depends on whether the people you follow have good taste in reposts.
I really tried to like Bluesky. Even wrote a minimal PDS to help gain a technical understanding of the platform.
In the end though I found the social aspect was a similar experience to what the author of this piece describes. Boring, repetitive, and full of a particular type of person I have no desire to interact with.
So I went back to X, which for all its flaws at least has interesting content and, perhaps most importantly, has no equivalent to Bluesky's "nuclear block", so you can follow, and even participate in, divisive discussions where someone has been blocked.
I didn't like twitter because of the content and style.
I tried Bluesky ... found the same content and style.
People want and encourage that content and style. I realize that I'm just not into that form of social media, or maybe none of it.
Blocking is basically abuse nowadays in form of “coward block”. Very common in reddit, around topics about EVs (interestingly many of their usernames follow same pattern which makes me think these are malicious bots).
Basically they’ll respond to your comment with a falsehood and block you so you can’t respond (and most times won’t even see the response). Comment stays up for rest of the gang to brigade on.
That was Reddit's choice. Blocking used to be a mute function. Then in 2021 or so they changed it to "you can't participate in a conservation I'm having at any point in the chain." Everyone said it was a bad idea and one post even demonstrated how easy it'd be to abuse such a function:https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/sdcsx3/test...
Awful idea.
All that said: Twitter stule threads are much more ephemeral. So a block isn't as impactful there.
I want to separate the site itself away from the audience, really
It does get a bit screechy over there but I prefer to view it by its own merits technologically
Bluesky is less about dopamine hits and pointless online debate. X is TikTok'ified dopamine hit 'discussion'.
I explore music intentionally. If I firehosed random music nonstop I’d burn out. Do that with social media randos, with an even lower quality bar? Nope. No one tells people they “shouldn’t curate music, just listen to whatever randomly plays.”
No media/person is owed attention. Blocking and shaping my experience is being rational/intentional, not cowardly. Yours is the same logic behind removing YouTube dislikes and replacing Netflix’s old, user-shaped system with today’s garbage algo. Suffer through piles of trash on the off chance something good appears. Again no. I have limited attention.
I deliberately seek out well-reasoned, articulated opposing views in formats that actually support learning and understanding.
Short-form media is useful for discovering topics, not for POV growth. The format itself doesn’t support meaningful discussion or exposition. It's 'short form'. It gets eyeballs so people try to take advantage of the reach and kinda shoe horn stuff in, but the format sucks for that.
> So I went back to X, which for all its flaws at least has interesting content and, perhaps most importantly, has no equivalent to Bluesky's "nuclear block", so you can follow, and even participate in, divisive discussions where someone has been blocked.
In other words you agree with Musk's reasons for buying Twitter and opening the place up to other voices than just those which fled to places like BS. Good for you to acknowledge this and to realise that just being in the same place - virtual or physical - with others who you happen to disagree with does not 'taint' the place nor does it make it impossible to interact with most of them except for the looney fringes. BS was bound to end up like it did just like e.g. Gab ended up the way it did: it attracted those fringes, the I-support-the-current-thing types, the follow-the-leader factions, the I-am-very-special-and-you-should-venerate-me crowds. Some of them remained on or returned to what is now X where they do their thing but there's not enough of them to set the tone so you can ignore them.
>just being in the same place - virtual or physical - with others who you happen to disagree with does not 'taint' the place nor does it make it impossible to interact with most of them except for the looney fringes
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi_bar
Unfortunately, my line of work attracts the Looney fringes. So I withdrew from most mainstream stuff as I saw the above metaphor happen in real time over the span of a decade. Good for you if you are in a more tame profession/hobby (or perhaps, you're a part of it. In that case, condolences).
Do you actually believe that, say, Barack Obama [1] or Pope Leo XIV [2] are nazis? If the answer is "yes" you may have more in common with MAGA looney fringes than you think.
[1] https://x.com/barackobama [2] https://x.com/Pontifex
It is the 'democrat' looney fringe, not the MAGA looney fringe which labels everyone a nazi so I suspect that someone who labels the mentioned individuals as such is more likely to be part of the former fringe than of the latter. Had they been part of the latter the label would have been 'commie' or something along those lines.
Ah yes, those scary nazi's who, if the media and many of those influenced by them are to be believed have swamped the streets together with fascists and otherwise-scarily-labelled people.
That's the problem with labelling anyone you don't like a nazi, fascist, racist, homophobe, 'trans'phobe, etc. By the time you're done labelling everyone outside your narrow corridor of allowed opinions with those scary labels you'll find that most people carry at least one of them and as such have gotten used to those terms. Nazi? Well, given that my neighbour - nice guy, helps out when needed, doesn't bother anyone but was called such because he did not want his daughter to share a bathroom with that weird punk in a dress - and my uncle - put a Trump sign in his front yard - and my colleague - drives a truck - seem to be nazi's I guess it is alright to be a nazi nowadays?
I cam only hope that you, being in such a scary profession/hobby that you have felt the need to withdraw from most mainstream stuff do not make the mistake of labelling everyone outside your narrow window of allowed opinions with these scary labels. Or, perhaps, you do, in that case I won't send condolences 'cause you're part of the problem.
I think if you’re going to complain about how mean and unfair the progressives are to you then you should have to include a few examples of the posts that provoked their ire.
Like any social media site there are people on bluesky I find annoying, but I just block them. It’s even got official support for blocklists maintained by others if you are into that.
Bluesky is far from perfect, but I think you need a realistic comparison to other social media networks. Twitter is far more toxic if you are unable to curate your feed. Mastodon has a nice community, especially for tech, but lacks breadth.
There is a core group at Bluesky of people that left Twitter and they have an obvious slant, but I really don’t see this issue making the network worse than any other and only requires you to curate your feed like you have to do on every network.
Was there a magic time in social media when you couldn't make blanket statements about "groupthink"?
Granted I'm also skeptical of that term and others. I find people will put it on anything they see that they don't like in order to discount it, such as "those people only think that because of groupthink" but you don't know those people...
It's a good place for me for posting photos and links but I have an absolute policy against following anyone who says anything about politics, gender, chronic diseases, disability, or anything negative in their profile. I'd be doing engagement farming and probably have 15k followers now if it didn't raise my blood pressure to look at random profiles.
I feel Mastodon is a nicer place these days because the worst tranche of Mastodonsters seemed to have migrated to Bluesky.
Politics I can understand, but what's wrong with, say, a deaf or blind user putting that in their bio?
It is one thing to be disabled, it is another thing to be "diss abled" and be continuously angry about it. Same thing about people who have fibromyalgia, chronic lyme, etc. I mean, my wife has a good friend who has fibro and she is cool but the people I find online who first and foremost want to talk about their health challenges seem to build an identity and find meaning around it.
For instance you find a lot of people on Mastodon who complain that people don't put ALT text on images but I work really hard to write good ALT text for my photos and people aren't thankful for that.
I don't see the mentioned categories of inherently offensive but on platforms like Bluesky and Mastodon I see them as associated with emotional negativity.
>the people I find online who first and foremost want to talk about their health challenges seem to build an identity and find meaning around it.
Don't see anything wrong with that. The squeaky grease gets the wheel, after all. So people like that lead to more accessibility options, or awareness to fund initiatives to hell solve those issues for future generations.
>you find a lot of people on Mastodon who complain that people don't put ALT text on images but I work really hard to write good ALT text for my photos and people aren't thankful for that.
Well that's just our society. We don't get thanked for what is "expected" of us. Only punished for our shortcomings. Media reflects reality in that case.
Well if that’s your attitude it is no wonder you feel hated and marginalized and not getting what you want. In successful relationships you show gratitude much more often than you complain.
On Mastodon I find a lot of people who do the work of running servers are pretty steamed about all the hateful and demanding people on that platform. They don’t usually talk about it because they don’t want to get dogpiled, but it comes up often when I get into conversations with those people.
Maybe the thing you're missing is that, for many of those people, the "relationship" does not feel very successful.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Wow Paul. That's a pretty mean spirited viewpoint.
I will think of this when I see your name, and think differently of you. You are quite active, and I'm sad to have seen such a base mena character. You have the right to pick your filters, even if I think that's crass & ridiculous to say "no politics" no advocacy. It's unclear and really shitty IMO to cast such nasty vague aspertions as "worst tranche of Mastodonsters" though. Just saying incredibly nasty things that mean nothing clear & that just cast the worst most ungenerous light. Dude!
Right now I am sure there are millions of posts about whatever happened in Venezeula last night. None of these people have any actual information, it doesn't have any value as "news" -- I'll get more out of reading about it in The Economist next week if not other papers. Sure it is a signification that other people are angry and I can't blame them for being angry but if I get angry it doesn't accomplish anything. It's like you're in an airplane at 40k feet that just sprung a leak and you need to put the oxygen mask on yourself before you can take care of the people around you.
I'm going to argue that those feelings of anger are self-destructive and don't lead to effective activism or positive change in the world. Emotions are contagious
People can post all the politics they like and some of it is going to get in my feed but there are a lot of people who post 20 angry things about Trump a day and nothing good is going to come out of following people like that. I am interested in activism on the issues of: (1) Gen Z's social disconnectedness, (2) an "othering" style of activism on the left that helps the right win, (3) subverting the "trauma theory" that encourages people to build identities around marginalization (e.g. "diss abled" people), (4) recognition of the common (5-10%) condition of schizotypy which is now misdiagnosed as ADHD, autism and other fashionable conditions, and (5) getting our economy and technology aligned with our environment.
Getting mad doesn't help with any of these.
Fwiw you come across as angry (tho not mean) in this stack. I am aligned with you on each and every enum. but maybe I'm too exotic (+ not in the thick of it)
(1) It's hard not to think about angry people for me and not get angry because I am involved in humanity and emotions are contagious. It's why I have to limit my exposure to angry people.
(2) I've had phases of my life where activism has been 30-100% of my activity so I've had a lot of experience talking to people door to door, tabling, giving speeches, convincing people to run for public office, going to meetings of different groups to build bridges, etc. (... with that emotional sensitivity!)
I've given many talks where the crowd was excited and other times been showed the door early and got harsh corrections. I know how people respond to messages when I deliver them and when others deliver them. For that matter I work in the social sciences department with survey data and I'm well read in political science even if I have to defer to the experts at work about it.
So I know if you're going to talk about "white privilege" you might as well mortgage all your future earnings and give them straight to the Ku Klux Klan. I'm deeply offended when "woke" people act as if teaching elementary school students the difference between "equity" and "equality" is going to do anything about a difficult problem such as racism. And I think strident transgenderism has made expressing your gender in any unconventional way more and not less dangerous in the last 20 years.
I'm angry about left-wing slacktivism precisely because I care about the things that they say they care for.
Fair points-- I have to reflect.
I'm just as terrified of going around in circles as you are -- I'm guessing that's where some of the anger comes from-- but I've no relevant expertise/experience to stay grounded.
>I am involved in humanity
This may or may not help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sum,_humani_nihil_a_me_al...
(It's taken very seriously now, was Marx's personal maxim, but it started off as a joke)
Also--
>racism
Prioritisation is hard. Easier to solve tech-> economics-> racism (in that order, but smh folks mix it up, because racism feels __DEAREST[0]__ -- thanks but no thanks globalsocial media-- and the others not so much?)
[0]So different than opiate in action yet so similar in effect
Ps: if aeb is listening-- Buxton!!
I lifted that line from this poem!
https://www.yourdailypoem.com/listpoem.jsp?poem_id=2118
>I'm going to argue that those feelings of anger are self-destructive and don't lead to effective activism or positive change in the world.
I challenge you to find one societal feat in history that was achieved without any violence nor abuse whatsoever. You're arguing for an ideal humanity hasn't achieved yet,and may never achieve at this rate.
And you know I hate fascists but boy they have great footwear.
[dead]
I literally can't tell if this is sarcasm.
Sadly, no. These are the kinds of people that an article like "bluesky is not a good place" appeals to. Aka the ones who are not the ones seeking Bluesky to get away from such close minded folk.
(1) I think X is much worse and haven't had an account there since 2016
(2) The unhealthy culture started on X
(3) I don't complain about the unhealthy culture on Bluesky on Bluesky and I don't participate in it.
In the mid/late 2000s when the big social media sites were rising people posted harmless inane status updates about nothing, just testing out the potential of the technology. This eventually evolved into tried and true methods of earning engagement from the platform in the most cynical and exploitative ways possible, leading to things like the entire Buzzfeed clickbait journalism transformation.
You can't recreate how social media used to be because people know how to exploit it now, there's no going back. You couldn't recreate Google at the turn of the millennium with the PageRank algorithm because of how SEO was gamed, so it's obvious why these twitter clones keep stumbling reimplementing the same tech.
This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy. There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely. There’s nothing stopping you from helping build the community you desire. You just want the work done for you. Stop complaining about it and make it happen.
The tools are there to make it what you want, it is light years ahead of the other platform. Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination.
> This and the many other opinions on Bluesky are just lazy
Which of the many backed and well thought out points did you find lazy?
> There is nothing stopping you from curating the moderation to your wants or even creating your own moderation entirely
Not sure you read the article, but his point is that there's nothing to curate. It's full of a certain type of person, and not much else. I can attest to this too.
> Many people have this weird nostalgia about a Twitter that never existed anywhere but in their imagination
I have no nostalgia for Twitter, but I do remember what it used to be like (way back when you used to SMS in your tweets!). It was a fun place with random, sometimes interesting, sometimes thoughtful, most times funny and inane posts. That's not nostalgia, that's how it was.
Subjective kvetching about a social media platform that is totally open to analysis, without providing any numbers at all seems like a singular failure of journalism. A news site like MS Now has the resources to do that, but evidently not the editorial decision-making.
I don't understand why people expected Bluesky to be different.
Even if it's possible for individuals to curate a positive experience for themselves, at a population level, it's still a corrosive, addictive, reductive medium. The incentives are the same. You can't outrun McLuhan.
Bluesky, Mastodon, Truth Social, Threads, etc. only work as long as users feel like they're surrounded by safe ideas and allies. None of it scales. It only works in echo-chamber mode.
> those ideas are all circulated among people who already agree with each other. That’s not activism; it’s venting.
I want to quote this. It describes so much of activism so well.
Venting is important too. Especially on topics you might feel alienated on by your physical community. Kids have less places to go than ever and adults are lonlier than ever, so they will find other means to fill that social void.
My Bluesky feed is wonderfully free of politics (except for today because of ... recent events). It's mostly tech and AI discourse
Its gonna be a long 2026 if today is any indicator. Wish you the best of luck.
I stick with tech news and the creator space on social media, and while I could very well be doing something fantastically wrong, it is hard for me to find on Bluesky when compared to Mastodon and X.
All these years later, and nothing has replicated what Google Plus accidentally pulled off.
I really enjoy Bluesky a lot, but I agree that there's not enough tech news for my taste.
I do follow a bunch of tech news outlets (including many HN bots), and that works. But there is very little engagement, few likes and few comments. I'd like to see more of what others think. My experience on Twitter was that often these comments suck and aren't thoughtful, but there are some gems, some really enriching, and also that it was still useful for networking & finding those other interesting people out there.
Mastodon seems to have gotten most of the devs. But they don't have a ton of tech news either. And honestly there's just so little interesting development of Mastodon / ActivityPub. Where-as there are really neat amazing not hard to do cute apps and experiences happening with atproto / Bluesky. It's a weird bifurcation of not that technical sometimes but also technical about itself & very active about itself.
Bluesky is miserable. Great post about what makes it what it is: https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-is-blueskyism
The stuff Nate Silver is concerned about has nothing to do with being an active, good-faith, contributing member of a social network and everything to do with being a writer trying to sell his writing and expecting to sit in a privileged position of respect above the hoi paloi simply because he founded a glorified popular blog. He's salty about Bluesky because he couldn't figure out how to engagement farm there like he did on Twitter, so when people got upset at his click bait tactics he table-flipped and called the whole endeavor doomed.
As I often try to tell my mother, if there are a lot of people who have a problem with you, maybe you should seek out the common denominator.
The engagement farming isnt difficult if you focus on it. It simply requires you to... Actively participate in discussions and topics. Harder to automate than spamming blog links, and that's great.
Also, a common saying for your 2nd paragraph: "If everywhere you go smells like shit, maybe it’s time to check your shoes"
So the author focuses their whole article on politics but complains that it misses the “little bit of everything”?
I don't get it.
There is more on bsky then politics. It might be less in amount because it's smaller but it surely is less toxic too.
I guess this is how you end up after being too long on xwitter: missing politics everywhere...
I do not use twitter/x, I do not use bluesky and I feel like I am dodging a lot of non anonymous people with uwarranted self importance.
I guarantee you that you will be happier if you avoid nom anonymous people with unwarranted self importance im general and online discussion connected to emotional topics specifically.
Anything technically interesting will appear on hacker news and other worldy news I can get by a quick daily check of my favorite news pages.
>Anything technically interesting will appear on hacker news
Sadly there's not a huge gamedev community here. So I do venture to the mainstream sites to peruse most gaming news. This is especially the case with the indie community that pretty much stick to the Twitterverse and Discord.
> There is also little possibility for political persuasion on Bluesky, which has a user base that’s a fraction of the size of X’s, and has far fewer news influencers.
Well, yeah—that’s a big part of why I’m there instead of on Twitter. But that’s a feature, not a bug.
This is basically like trying to move from Tinder to Bumble and complaining that it still sucks.
It’s the same people! What did you expect?
>the prevailing political culture is defined by an extremely narrow range of ideological viewpoints.
For all its problems, X is undisputedly the place with the most diverse range of viewpoints and interesting people.
It seems that this author wants more diversity of thought but also starts the article out decrying X for unbanning accounts that he disagrees with.
Kind of difficult to have diversity of thought if you ban diversity of thought.
My X / Twitter account is 17 years old. I made it 2 years after the website was founded, and for a long time I thought Twitter was the most personally positive and professionally valuable social media website I participated in.
Often when I wanted to research a niche technical topic I would search for it on Twitter, or tweet about it and see who in my network knew more. Often I would see individuals with niche followings say incredibly insightful or valuable stuff years before other people were saying it. I also had a bunch of professional connections form on Twitter along with many job opportunities I could have pursued.
Now I view X as having destroyed nearly all of that. The system is so setup to reward rage-bait and slop that even if I try to curate my experience for it the meaningful individuals get drowned out. The algorithm and all the actions taken on the website seem more about creating a social manipulation machine for Musk than enriching its users, and as a result many of the most thoughtful and valuable people have scattered away from the platform.
I'm all for diversity of thought, but X under Musk is about non-transparent algorithmic manipulation of speech and manipulating emergent behavior to achieve political goals. It is one thing to unban people, but it's another thing to intentionally break all tools (like ban lists) that enable people to self moderate. Musk's X amplifies certain speech and then disempowers people who try to attain higher quality more productive discourse.
The watershed event that caused Musk to buy Twitter was when Twitter banned the Babylon Bee for making a joke about Katlyn Jenner.
Most left leaning people were blind to the increasingly censorious management of old Twitter. It had been ramping up pretty aggressively though up to that point.
Personally I haven’t noticed the algorithm disrupt my usage of X. I follow interesting makers and tech type people, and my feed is mostly stuff aligned with my interests. I didn't have the same network/professional usage you’re describing so maybe that’s the main difference for me.
As a way of staying informed and entertained it is better to me than old Twitter. But perhaps you are right as a way of networking or collaborating maybe it’s different now, idk because I never used it like that.
It was not a Jenner joke: "The Babylon Bee's Man of the Year Is Rachel Levine" was the tweet that got them banned. Cringey but not remotely ban-worthy imho.
The context being that USA Today had celebrated Levine as one of its "Women of the Year".
Or as the Babylon Bee put it:
"Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, where he serves proudly as the first man in that position to dress like a western cultural stereotype of a woman."
Far too blasphemous for Twitter's censors at the time.
“You know, playing this doesn’t make you cool like a real rock band.”
https://xkcd.com/359/
"Groupthink"... Uh, you're free to form your own groups and say what you want. There are a few old-school conservatives I follow on Blue Sky. They're clearly not the mainstream there, but they do exist.
It sure beats the other site where a billionaire leans on the algorithm to give a big voice to all kinds of wretched stuff.
I literally just want a place that doesn't unnecessarily censor, that works on a technical level. Left/right politics aside. If you're being organic it shouldn't be a problem regardless of who ends up being correct about something
This is my problem with Reddit (with shared mods, and sometimes the site itself) and even Youtube with their AI deleting comments. It's preferential. It's applying one single standard of "misinformation" and sticking everyone else with it
(Example: "covid is an incredibly deadly disease, everyone has to get vaccinated". But credible epidemiologists - yes, Wikipedia, credible epidemiologists - like John Ioannidis will tell you we're being lied to, effectively. That's no reason to start banning people)
I want to enjoy Bluesky from a position of a thing that doesn't kill you via the algorithm, among other things
Edit: downvoting me does absolutely not make me wrong. It is incredibly concerning that this is the hive mind. I really hope you don't work at the big tech companies
>downvoting me does absolutely not make me wrong.
You're stating an opinion, it is not wrong nor right ny definition.
And honestly, that sort of swipe makes me wary on what your lens of "censorship" is. Your post is still readable, albeit slightly less due to the Downvoting format.
I immediately got -4 within the first minute of posting it. It was just slightly irritating, I know we're not meant to comment on downvotes. But there's 0 critical thinking behind the people who do that (and they've also accured enough karma to give downvotes in the first place)
Covid censorship was a ridiculous boondoggle and it's time everyone came to terms with it. It wasn't "misinformation". Like, at all
And while we're on the subject of Musk and Twitter it feels like architectually he did destroy it but I'd also like to point out that he told one of the authors of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration that he'd been put on a trends blacklist - old Twitter was banning real doctors for real information, and that's just covid, never mind outside of that
That has to count for something. I share the concern about Elon. He's not pleasant. And yet even by accident he exposed a lot of what was going on? But if you stick to the mainstream views of everything or the Times or whatever then you won't be at all sympathetic. You'll just say "Ah yes, good. They removed things. That is proper, because those things were misinformation"
[dead]
Kinda impressive they managed to attract people more insufferable than reddit.