No kidding when the other site has filled up with people who only believes statements that any smart 5 year old would think is silly.
It is too bad things have got to this point, but we as voters let it happen. At least there are some countries that still value Science. The US seems to be doing all it can to hand what remains of our scientific lead to those countries.
X really sucks in it's current state, but it's where the things I'm interested in happen or are discussed first (eg AI state of the art, bootstrappers). There's a bunch of tech people I follow who aren't on BlueSky, Threads, etc.
Interestingly, when I glance at my Bluesky feed once a month or so, it's a lot of complaining about everything. I think I hear more about Elon on Bluesky than I do X. And yeah, I follow reasonably high-value people.
That said, I keep some sort of X exit plan in place, and I look at it a lot less than before. When the signal vs noise value shifts, I'll be done, but I'm not quite there yet.
>They ended up with a final sample size of 813 people.
I want BlueSky to succeed but this sampling bias is simply too much to ignore.
This comment (by nunobrito) from few days ago on a similar topic is best analysis of this topic.
> These news are awfully similar to click-bait stating "the science is settled" by grouping a small set of the group and then pretending it represents the whole.
The paper failed both to 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.
If the poll was done _properly_, that sample size is _fine_; there’ll be a decent margin of error, but not as much as you might expect. 1k people is a fairly standard size for polls, with even very high quality ones rarely doing over a few thousand.
The real consideration was whether the poll was done properly.
Can't help but notice arstechnica seems to have an anti-Elon agenda.
I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
Among all the major technical benefits of Bluesky over Twitter listed in the article, I'd add two more:
* links to external web pages (your paper, your blog, your new dataset, etc.) won't cause your posts to be suppressed
* Bluesky discussions are accessible to the open web
These two features are absolutely essential for science, and perhaps if X was more like Twitter on free speech and openness to the web then scientists wouldn't have moved away.
19 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 41.9 ms ] threadIt is too bad things have got to this point, but we as voters let it happen. At least there are some countries that still value Science. The US seems to be doing all it can to hand what remains of our scientific lead to those countries.
Interestingly, when I glance at my Bluesky feed once a month or so, it's a lot of complaining about everything. I think I hear more about Elon on Bluesky than I do X. And yeah, I follow reasonably high-value people.
That said, I keep some sort of X exit plan in place, and I look at it a lot less than before. When the signal vs noise value shifts, I'll be done, but I'm not quite there yet.
https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
I want BlueSky to succeed but this sampling bias is simply too much to ignore.
This comment (by nunobrito) from few days ago on a similar topic is best analysis of this topic.
> These news are awfully similar to click-bait stating "the science is settled" by grouping a small set of the group and then pretending it represents the whole. The paper failed both to 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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44982510
The real consideration was whether the poll was done properly.
I never managed to create an account on Bluesky as one of their support email blocks certain email domains. They still have a long way to go.
I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
* links to external web pages (your paper, your blog, your new dataset, etc.) won't cause your posts to be suppressed
* Bluesky discussions are accessible to the open web
These two features are absolutely essential for science, and perhaps if X was more like Twitter on free speech and openness to the web then scientists wouldn't have moved away.
I don’t see it as sustainable and fewer people are using it. X is undoubtedly worse but Bluesky doesn’t appear to be the answer.
Scientists No Longer Find X Professionally Useful, and Have Switched to Bluesky
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978815
Ars Technica