Seems to be similar to my experience. I used to go to track and follow interesting individuals - scientists, engineers, artists... then it all got washed away with flamebait. Bluesky doesn't feel like its there yet, but I'm hopeful
I'm trying to like Bluesky. X has a large tech community and some deep thoughts/discussions on tech and philosophy matters, but I can't find similar people or groups on Bluesky yet.
I registered a Bluesky account not too long ago and noticed shortly after a regular appearance of gay and furry nsfw content. The NSFW setting was turned off, so these accounts are for whatever reason neglecting to tag their content properly.
Telling Bluesky that I'm not interested in "this type of content" didn't help remove the problem. Blocking/Reporting the accounts is futile, as they are so numerous. Moderation lists for LGBT/furry content seem to be nonexistent or unlisted from public modlist sites (maybe they are considered to be "homophobic"?)
Anyway, Bluesky does't seem to be safe-for-work, so it's hardly a proper replacement for Twitter. If this is fixed, then that would be good.
Several comments already angrily agreeing with the claim in the headline, which is weird.
"Yeah, those academics are all in a bubble together on bsky". Yes, that sounds "professionally useful", to be in a bubble with the people who work in the same field.
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 identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario). Therefore the paper only seems biased on its best scenario or downright propaganda at its worst.
NOSTR and Mastodon should never be left out of any serious research.
i wonder why various governments and journalists keep using anti-social media as well, due to the innate conflict of interest: anti-social media is all about sinking governments and trad journalism.
don't go on the rival platform and legitimize it further, IMO
I find it really difficult to care about whether other people use a website or not. I stopped using it at one point, and I started using another website instead. I really don't care if other people continue to use it because I can just continue on with my life ignoring it.
I wish that was the case but at least in my domain, after many people initially switched to bluesky, most eventually went back since many high-profile people did not make the switch.
In recent years, new leadership at Twitter has made substantive changes that have resulted in increases in the prevalence of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory, and harassment on the platform
changes to Twitter have made the social media platform no longer professionally useful or pleasant
I think we need to be honest that - while there is some truth there - this is the view from elements of the left who were instrumental in suppressing conservative voices and generally making it an unpleasant environment for people who did not subscribe to modish cultural takes under the previous management.
The alternative view is of course that for good or ill, freedom of speech is a much higher priority now - which you would think is more in tune with scientific and rational enquiry.
None of that is mentioned in the abstract which immediately suggests caution should be taken when evaluating this study.
Circa 2018-2020, Twitter felt genuinely unique as a social media platform to find intelligent scientific and policy discussion. The quality of discussion in my feed felt much higher than reddit or HN. I could barely imagine leaving it. By 2024, that completely reversed, and it felt much so, so stupider than anywhere else. So many scientists have left. Eventually I left despite having 1000s of followers.
Bluesky has recapitulated or even surpassed peak sci twitter. The signal:noise is excellent. However, it requires some work because there is no algorithm. Aggressively unfollow people with low signal:noise, use the custom feeds that disable reposts and enable replies, use the Quiet Posters feed, and use sill.social. This has created a science feed that for me surpasses even the peak of Twitter, let alone X today which is unusable for scientific discussion.
Finally, the thing that drives me crazy is that Bluesky is literally a popular open-source, nonprofit, Ad-less, algorithm-less, truly free and partially decentralized social media network. It's what we all dreamed about in the 2010s! It's Mastodon but actually popular! But half the tech community have convinced themselves it's a "liberal bubble" (that anyone can join....) and that the website that apparently isn't a bubble is the, err, website run by a billionaire with an algorithm designed to promote certain political content that agrees with that billionaire. Absolutely bizarre situation.
I've stayed with X, just because it still seems like that's where stuff is talked about. If and when that changes, I won't need an academic study to tell me so.
My Twitter account was hijacked earlier this year. I created it in 2007 using an e-mail address on a domain I've owned since 1999. Multiple attempts to recover the account have been rejected.
I created a new account. Since I'm not following anybody, I see a random-ish feed of things.
It's kinda jarring going from a feed of tech science music to misinformation getrichquick scams and reposted viral content. Like woah.
So they surveyed a few hundred people and that’s supposed to justify an academic paper? In a formerly prestigious journal (emphasis on the former - if you need evidence that it’s been co-opted by activists take a look at its home page).
Personally Twitter was very useful as a mid-career engineer to keep up to date on Bay Area developments and connect with my former coworkers. Several of my previous jobs were the result of Twitter DMs.
At this point someone being a big Twitter user would be a deal breaker for joining their company.
i have only read the title and synopsis, but weighing the professional value of personal microblogging platforms seems misguided , i wonder what the breakdown would be if linkedin (the "professional" microblogging platform, even as awful as it may be) were included , i would wager that it would be the winner. nevermind that "following academics" is something that sounds better than it actually is and reduces the individual to their profession. a more interesting question is where the dilettantes frequent
If either "reality has a liberal bias" or "scientific institutions have become ideologically captured" then something akin to this would make sense. Of course, how you would distinguish between the two I'm not sure.
35 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 53.1 ms ] threadThere is no point in creating an account there, even the Elon Haters have gone back, they keep the BSky account as a backup.
Sad, but if you want to feel the global pulse (however weak) X/Twitter is still the place.
Also X/Twitter is an insane name.
Telling Bluesky that I'm not interested in "this type of content" didn't help remove the problem. Blocking/Reporting the accounts is futile, as they are so numerous. Moderation lists for LGBT/furry content seem to be nonexistent or unlisted from public modlist sites (maybe they are considered to be "homophobic"?)
Anyway, Bluesky does't seem to be safe-for-work, so it's hardly a proper replacement for Twitter. If this is fixed, then that would be good.
"Yeah, those academics are all in a bubble together on bsky". Yes, that sounds "professionally useful", to be in a bubble with the people who work in the same field.
The paper failed both to identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario). Therefore the paper only seems biased on its best scenario or downright propaganda at its worst.
NOSTR and Mastodon should never be left out of any serious research.
don't go on the rival platform and legitimize it further, IMO
changes to Twitter have made the social media platform no longer professionally useful or pleasant
I think we need to be honest that - while there is some truth there - this is the view from elements of the left who were instrumental in suppressing conservative voices and generally making it an unpleasant environment for people who did not subscribe to modish cultural takes under the previous management.
The alternative view is of course that for good or ill, freedom of speech is a much higher priority now - which you would think is more in tune with scientific and rational enquiry.
None of that is mentioned in the abstract which immediately suggests caution should be taken when evaluating this study.
Bluesky has recapitulated or even surpassed peak sci twitter. The signal:noise is excellent. However, it requires some work because there is no algorithm. Aggressively unfollow people with low signal:noise, use the custom feeds that disable reposts and enable replies, use the Quiet Posters feed, and use sill.social. This has created a science feed that for me surpasses even the peak of Twitter, let alone X today which is unusable for scientific discussion.
Finally, the thing that drives me crazy is that Bluesky is literally a popular open-source, nonprofit, Ad-less, algorithm-less, truly free and partially decentralized social media network. It's what we all dreamed about in the 2010s! It's Mastodon but actually popular! But half the tech community have convinced themselves it's a "liberal bubble" (that anyone can join....) and that the website that apparently isn't a bubble is the, err, website run by a billionaire with an algorithm designed to promote certain political content that agrees with that billionaire. Absolutely bizarre situation.
I created a new account. Since I'm not following anybody, I see a random-ish feed of things.
It's kinda jarring going from a feed of tech science music to misinformation getrichquick scams and reposted viral content. Like woah.
At this point someone being a big Twitter user would be a deal breaker for joining their company.