HN Explorer

13 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 23.7 ms ] thread
antibull
Bluesky is a dead echochamber.
raxxorraxor
That probably depends on the field and the most impactful research rarely has any presence on either.

X might be a cesspit, but I would be more concerned about self-reinforcing "studies" being developed with and on Bluesky.

becausereligi
Maybe it's that people have to say "on X"?

I don't like saying "on X".

Discordian93
I generallu find it easier to get engagement in bluesky and fedi than x/twitter. I guess in X if you're not paying for the bluecheck you're soft shadow banned.
camdroidw
Are we still hoping that "x will die"? It's been 3 years folks.
arghandugh
This is because Twitter is an explicitly anti-science rightwing hate project designed to cater to narcissists and the morally degenerate. (The key clue is that it is run by a morally degenerate narcissist)
vannevar
Bots and trolls not particularly interested in science, study finds.
lazzlazzlazz
I haven't found this to be the case. I check both regularly and much of the "science" that has engagement on Bluesky is thinly-veiled political slop earning engagement as a form of tacit "resistance". It's paper thin (and even the comments here on HN demonstrate a bit of this effect).

X downranks links in general, unfortunately, so unless the research is reformatted for X (rare) it won't get much engagement.

shortercode
I used to be a big fan of Twitter, I followed a number of excellent programmers who regularly posted. But then they messed with the algorithm so I couldn’t actually see what the people I was interested in were posting. I just got generic meme style posts. Whatever good content that still reached me gradually decreased as people realised it wasn’t worth posting anymore. So I left and haven’t found any suitable replacement tbh.

So yeah entirely unsurprised that people aren’t engaging with science on X

Rakshith
yeah and I'm supposed to believe that written by the Guardian