- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ll never understand liberals need to distance themselves from those who disagree with their opinions while simultaneously asking for their vote. You really need to engage and find common ground with those you disagree with to win their vote.
Dunno about liberals, but I don’t like hanging out at nazi bars.
People have been trying that for years without apparent success. Let’s try shunning the antisocial people instead. We didn’t defeat the nazis by being nice and friendly to them
Besides, journalists being on twitter is one large reason anyone cares about twitter. Getting people to care about a platform not owned by the first lady might be a good idea
“Journalists flock to yet another proprietary, commercial platform as the last becomes increasingly ‘toxic’ for reasons unknown.”
No elon… literally all that matters
Oh shut up with that.
You act like there’s some kind of alternative which there isn’t. Mastodon, which I’m sure you were going to mention, absolutely does not count because it’s a nightmare to use and they haven’t bothered to fix any of its problems.
So there is no viable alternative.
Also because it’s so awful to use, no one does use it, and so no one’s on the platform. After all, journalists need to go where the viewers are.
There is zero point being smug about your open source platform, if no one uses your open source platform.
News outlets should be spinning up their own federated social media instances, so that THEY control their own platform, akin to a website, or email addresses.
That solves all of their issues with it.
All of these journalists have a website they can post on already. Their companies site.
Okay then, hope people won’t complain when things go to shit again
Just forever on march towards the inevitable due to convenience
You do realise people would’ve switched to mastodon if it weren’t so inconvenient? People don’t care about the long term projections of Bluesky. They want Muskless Twitter and they got Muskless Twitter. Simple as that
I’m just really tired of telling people about the obvious, and every time history keeps repeating
I don’t believe it’s just convenience, it’s as you said, people don’t care about the long term. In anything.
A big corporate platform (or whatever else, like, say, oil companies vs climate protesters) will always have more resources, whether it’s for development or marketing, so people will always have to be a bit willing to not have full convenience for a better world
If we don’t think about the long term, what are we even thinking of instead?
Social media rises and falls just like any other fad or fashion. It’s a never-ending churn, as people (particularly, young people) inevitably crave something novel. There’s little use in fighting the cycle, just as there’d be little use in fighting the trendy choices of a teenager.
It’s frustrating to watch people en masse continue to make choices that don’t make sense. It turns out that a lot of people are much more driven to follow the crowd than to have (let alone stand by) personal principles or rational decisions. Thankfully, we’re not obligated to be like that. There’s always some sort of counter-culture that bucks the main trends, and honestly? That’s where the most interesting people tend to be.
If you feel driven to educate people on the futility of trends, then by all means, go for it. I just know it can be draining, and not everyone is going to be receptive. On the plus side, you sound like a rational person who actually thinks about their decisions - in a world full of followers, that can be pretty powerful.
Ten years later
"Journalists flock from Bluesky…
I mean, what’s the alternative? Mastodon culturally could not get its shit together enough to be a viable alternative.
Shit, they can do a lemmy or kbin instance, it would fit their format anyways. Post link from their domain, and it gets shared across the network.
Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving, in this case the very guy that caused their troubles in the first place.
Those are the very people supposed that are supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threat as well as mobilize the general population to defend against them.
But again they lead the population to the slaugtherhouse.
The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s is certainly the first thread unravelling our civilizations in favour of the hype con-mens and their billionaires backers and other monarchs trying to swallow humanity whole.
All this effort, yet we don’t even resist…
Dude, what ?
Wait what happened here? Did the GPT understand what the hooman did not? R O F L
I think I was clear enough … but ok fine
https://chatgpt.com/share/674e9f43-b38c-8005-983b-52b292558f29
The commenter is expressing a deep critique of modern journalism and society at large, suggesting that journalists are failing in their responsibilities and are complicit in societal decline. Here’s a breakdown of what the commenter likely means:
#“Flock to wherever the critical mass of the herd is moving”
The commenter is criticizing journalists for following trends or popular movements (the “herd”) without critical thought. In this case, they’re pointing out the irony of journalists leaving X (formerly Twitter) for Bluesky, which is owned by Jack Dorsey, the same individual who they believe contributed to the issues with X in the first place.
#“Those are the very people supposed to inform us and warn us of upcoming threats”
Journalists are traditionally seen as watchdogs of society—tasked with investigating and exposing wrongs, informing the public of dangers, and holding power to account. The commenter believes that journalists are failing in this role and instead are following the crowd or serving the interests of the powerful.
#“Bow again they lead the population to the slaughterhouse”
This is a metaphor suggesting that journalists, instead of protecting society or providing guidance, are leading people into harmful or exploitative systems (like Bluesky, which the commenter views as another “slaughterhouse” similar to X). They argue that journalists are enabling the public’s exploitation rather than resisting it.
#“The death of journalism in the beginning of the 00s”
The commenter seems to argue that journalism has been in decline since the early 2000s, likely referring to trends like the rise of sensationalist media, the collapse of traditional news revenue models, and the increasing influence of corporate and billionaire-backed interests in the media landscape.
#“Unraveling our civilizations in favor of hype conmen and their billionaire backers”
Here, the commenter criticizes how society has moved toward elevating “hype” (short-term trends, marketing gimmicks, and flashy tech solutions) and “conmen” (figures like tech CEOs or opportunistic influencers) who are supported by billionaires. They argue that this is undermining democratic values and public institutions, leading to a general unraveling of civilization.
#“Trying to swallow humanity whole”
This phrase likely reflects their belief that powerful individuals or entities (tech billionaires, corporations, or modern elites) are consolidating power and control, exploiting humanity for their own benefit, and eroding societal structures.
“All this effort, yet we don’t even resist”
The commenter laments the lack of resistance or pushback from the general public or journalists against these harmful trends. They suggest that society is passively accepting exploitation and harm instead of fighting back.
#In Summary:
The commenter believes that journalists, who should be resisting harmful trends and informing the public, are instead complicit in perpetuating systems of exploitation (like Bluesky or X) controlled by the very figures responsible for creating societal problems. This lack of resistance reflects a broader societal failure to stand up against powerful entities that are eroding civilization for their own gain.
#You said: Why is this seen as a failure of the journalistic profession in particular ?
Can journalist really be expected to the understand the nuance and the weight of consequence of the architecture of the “public square” that they choose ?
In this case, privately owned “monarchical” centralized social media platform with one individual assuming complete control of all language and the means of mass communication of the entire intelligentsia ?
Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight and consequence of their actions ?
#ChatGPT said:
The commenter’s critique stems from the high expectations placed on the journalistic profession and the role it plays in democratic societies. Journalists are often seen as both watchdogs of power and facilitators of public discourse, which places an ethical and intellectual burden on them to understand the broader implications of their decisions and actions. However, your question raises important points about the fairness and feasibility of holding journalists to such a high standard, especially in complex situations like the architecture of the “public square.” Why is this seen as a failure of journalism?
#The Role of Journalists as Informers and Guides:
Journalism has traditionally been tasked with more than just reporting facts. Journalists are expected to critically analyze power structures, understand systemic issues, and inform the public in a way that fosters accountability and empowers citizens. The commenter believes that by flocking to platforms like Bluesky (owned by Jack Dorsey), journalists are showing a lack of critical thinking and failing to recognize the consequences of their choices. In this view, they are unwittingly legitimizing another centralized, privately-owned system that could perpetuate or worsen the very problems they faced on X (formerly Twitter).
#The “Monarchical” Structure of Social Media:
Platforms like Bluesky or X are privately owned “public squares” where a single individual or corporation has immense control over the flow of information, content moderation, and the rules of engagement. Journalists, as professionals who rely on these platforms to communicate and amplify their work, are seen as endorsing or enabling these systems by choosing to use them. The commenter believes this complicity undermines their role as critics of power, since they are aligning with systems that concentrate power in the hands of a few.
#The Historical Role of Journalists as Resistors:
Throughout history, journalists have been instrumental in resisting oppressive systems and exposing injustices. The commenter implies that this tradition is being abandoned in favor of convenience, popularity, or the path of least resistance. Rather than critically evaluating the implications of supporting platforms like Bluesky, journalists are seen as prioritizing their short-term goals (audience reach, relevance) over their long-term responsibility to challenge harmful systems.
#Can journalists be expected to understand the nuances of these platforms?
#Lack of Specialized Knowledge:
Most journalists are not technologists, architects of digital systems, or political theorists. They may not fully grasp the nuances of how social media platforms are designed, the centralization of power in digital spaces, or the systemic risks posed by monopolistic control over public discourse. Expecting all journalists to deeply understand these issues might be unrealistic.
#Pragmatism vs. Idealism:
Journalists often face pragmatic concerns—they need to be where their audience is to remain relevant. If the “critical mass” of users moves to a platform like Bluesky, journalists might feel they have no choice but to follow, even if they have misgivings about the platform’s architecture or ownership. Their immediate need to disseminate information and sustain their careers can take precedence over abstract ethical concerns.
#The Complexity of the Problem:
The architecture of the public square is a deeply complex and interdisciplinary issue, involving technology, sociology, economics, and governance. Even experts in these fields debate the best ways to design digital public spaces. Expecting individual journalists to fully grasp these complexities and act accordingly might be holding them to an impossible standard.
#Is it fair to expect journalists to understand the weight of their actions?
This is a matter of perspective:
#Yes, to some extent:
Journalists Influence Public Opinion: Their actions have societal consequences. By legitimizing certain platforms, they help shape the broader media ecosystem and public discourse. As professionals who rely on and amplify these systems, they arguably have a responsibility to critically assess their choices.
Journalistic Standards Demand It: Journalism is not just a profession but a public service. A core principle of journalism is to act in the public interest, which includes recognizing and resisting structures that could harm democracy or public discourse.
Historical Precedent Exists: Some journalists and media organizations have resisted harmful systems in the past. For example, during periods of censorship or propaganda, certain journalists have gone underground, created alternative systems, or exposed the flaws of dominant institutions. This demonstrates that resistance is possible, even if it is difficult.
#No, it might be unfair:
Journalists Are Human: They are part of the same systems they critique and may not have the time, resources, or expertise to fully understand the broader implications of every decision they make. Their primary focus is often on reporting, not on systemic critique or activism.
Lack of Alternatives: In many cases, journalists have limited choices. If every major platform is centralized and controlled by private interests, it may not be realistic to expect them to find or create entirely new systems.
The Problem Is Structural, Not Individual: The issue of centralized social media platforms is a systemic one, requiring collective action and policy changes. Expecting individual journalists to solve these problems on their own is an unfair burden.
[trunkcated by lemmy comment length limit]
Conclusion:
The commenter’s critique reflects a broader frustration with the state of journalism and society, but it may oversimplify the challenges journalists face. While it is fair to hold journalists accountable for the choices they make, it is also important to recognize the systemic nature of the problem. Addressing issues like the centralization of digital public spaces and the concentration of power in the hands of tech billionaires requires more than individual action—it calls for collective awareness, interdisciplinary collaboration, and structural reform.
I have an even shorter summary. The viewership are on bluesky, and not on Mastodon, so that’s where the journalists must go, end of mystery. No evil conspiracy required.
What kind of journalist just follows the herd? Haven’t they learned from Twitter that their participation in the platform, is what enpowers it. And if they can’t put that to good use, what good are they as journalists? Just slaugtherhouse hypemen? As if we needed anymore of those??
Missed a few points for not using: in summation lmao
How many more times am I going to see this same title before X implodes?
Same for Reddit, still very much alive apparently.
(I’m not going back, I’m happy here)
Can it implode? Leon can just keep burning money to keep it alive. It’s going to probably be funded by the government soon anyway.
I highly doubt it’ll ever be funded by the government.
It wouldn’t surprise me. He just partners with Truth Social and says that TS and Xitter will be the new government communication method and should be funded by the government. Probably will say it’s more efficient or something.
This is going to be a corruption free for all.
Sure, but there are all kinds of issue with that. First, Trump has significant investments in TS, so having the government fund that would be a massive conflict of interest. Second, conservatives love to rail on places like NPR getting public funding, and funding X is a bit too much of an about-face IMO.
Yeah, you’re right. Trump would never do anything that’s a conflict of interest.
You may be right, but I think it’s more likely than say deporting 10 million immigrants, or cutting spending by more than discretionary spending, or a number of things that people think are likely to happen. It’s not like conservative rags are actually going to tell their readers the truth anyway.
Yeah, my coworkers were kind of excited about Trump cutting $2T, and I tried to explain to them that’s not feasible with the way budgets are set up. They could maybe cut $1T if they really went deep, but to get anything more, they’d have to cut SS, Medicare, and the military, and Trump said that’s off limits.
I doubt they’ll hit $500B. They might get $2T over 10 years (so $200B/year) though, which I guess is how Congress likes to quantify spending changes to lessen the blow.
People thought the first Trump presidency was a politically divided time, but maybe we’re now entering an even more divided time, given that social media is now fragmenting along political lines, more prominently than it did before.
When a Maga billionaire buys a large social media platform… that will cause the divide. And it is.
While I would love people to come over to mastodon (or mastodon adjacent) I personally think this is a step in the right direction. Having more fediverse adjacent platforms makes it easier for people to communicate in a much less platform specific conglomeration.
Mastodon is broken as fuck for me. I don’t know if it’s my instance, or the country I’m in, or what. The app mostly just spins and hangs. It’s been like this for a year. I’ve never been able to see who other people are following, which is something I like to do to discover new content. I’ve never been able to view videos that people post. I joined in 2020 and I’m probably just going to delete my account.
As much as I don’t believe bsky will be any different, and won’t join it myself, the momentum is there. Took a little longer than it should have but the tipping point is here and we should all relish in the bird’s passing.
The bird died years ago. Now we wait for the death of a letter.
I think bluesky and twitter will become politically divided and become their respective echo chamber rather than Twitter going out of fashion.
Overall the discourse quality will go down at both places.
Thought may happen but it will still be an improvement.
The big problem with Twitter / X is everything ends up being about politics.
Want to talk about a video game, you can’t because some dipstick mega supporter is going to accuse it of being woke.
Want to talk about a programming language, nope apparently that is woke too.
Want to share a funny cat picture, nah, can’t do that apparently a man having a cat is gay and woke.It’s exhausting dealing with these idiots.
My bet is that Truth Social buys Twitter in an all-share deal, simultaneously enriching Trump and providing liquidity to Musk.
A lot of people exist on twitter because their favorite celebrity or news cite or company exists on there. The problem is that the lefties and LGBTQ folk create a ton of twitters content and are also a huge majority of those celebrities.
So while I think twitter will become a sort of right wing cesspool, BlueSky will be much different. Especially since BS has the ability to essentially build your own echo chamber on purpose. Which I actually think is fine because some of the echo chambers I’d compare to the instances on here that try to keep people safe and civil like beehaw. But the moment bluesky keeps getting celebs and organizations to make the swap, it’s all over for twitter. There is a critical mass there that will migrate regardless and honestly the echo chamber design means right wing folk would also do well on the platform if they know what they’re doing.
I’m glad to see Twitter/X collapsing if only to add to Musk’s problems, but at the same time just changing the corporate logo over the outhouse doesn’t make it smell any better. It’s a better place, but I’m sure it’s temporary, the same people/bots/trolls will just migrate right along with the rest of them.
Not sure if this is an age thing but at a certain point I just stopped wanting “forever fixes”. Nothing is forever. You’re just patching in the hopes that the nex hole is easier to patch now that you have all the shit you need to do patches.
The difference being that Bluesky has very robust block lists which you can subscribe to to remove these accounts for you.
This seems fine, so long as the journos remember how to pull up stakes once a platform decays. I hope they learn a lesson about the importance of owning your own audience, follower lists, etc.
/glances at substack
I hope that too. It would be nice.
To call hate speech and harassment “toxicity” downplays both issues.
I rather have a little toxicity than a bunch of overzealous moderators lording over the discourse.
If by “a little toxicity” you mean a little bit of aggressiveness, sarcasm, etc., I agree with you. It depends a lot on the community though - in some, allowing it will be counter-productive.
If however you mean harassment and hate speech, as the author of the text, I strongly disagree. If the mod doesn’t curb down those things, they might not be “lording” over the discourse, but other users are - because
- users shut each other up through harassment
- hate speech silences whole groups, as they leave the community
Another detail is that you don’t need to control the discourse to curb down harassment, since it’s only behavioural and not discursive in nature.
So IMO when it comes to those two things the problem is not overzealous mods, but dumb ones not doing due diligence, who are a bit too eager to falsely accuse their own users to be voicing hate speech or harassing each other when it is not the case.
[Sorry for the wall of text.]
Wtf is “hate speech”?
A: whatever those in control decide it is, used as a means of suppressing dissent.
Just think about that for a bit. What if I controlled Bluesky and decided your description of “toxicity” was hate speech?
The definition as taken to the courts in the USA is:
“Hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin.”
It has more rigorous legal definitions in many other jurisdictions where hate speech is explicitly illegal.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html
Canada for example.
You characterizing toxicity and hate speech as being related isn’t a position taken even remotely seriously by anyone who actually write laws on the subject, and many have been written across the world.
Broadly speaking, hate speech isn’t “being mean” in any legal definition… But that is what right-wing talking heads like to strawman it as.
“Hate speech” is defined and outlawed by countries around the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country
Threatening people based on their religion, race or other attributes is not dissent.
Wtf is “hate speech”?
Look it up.
Look up “woke”, “liberal”, ”facism”
Or simply the evolution of “gay”
I know values and meanings that i have come to understand and relate to those respective words. But you wont find a definite definition online.
For every honest academic attempt there is a bad faith troll. Neither actually embodies a literary authority to enforce a meaning to words.
Language is an emergent construct based on human interactions, all of us that use words are maintaining that fickle construct it in real time. Good and bad actors alike.
You’re reading too much into my “look it up”. It was basically “I’m not wasting my time with your rhetorical question”.
I’m aware of what you’re explaining (semantic drift + polysemy), however neither is relevant here.
According to CNN, X is the most ideologically balanced of the social media platforms (party affiliation stats are at 1:25).
I’m not saying that this makes X good, I’m saying it makes it interesting. Most social media sites lean left of center or very hard to the right, yet X seems to have found a balance. Or maybe it’s in transition into being a far right platform, idk, but at least as of this moment, it’s pretty balanced. Users are down, but it seems the current userbase is more balanced than it was.
That has little to do with whether X is “toxic,” but I do think it’s an interesting statistic to discuss.
Certainly an interesting statistic but one thing to keep in mind is that Elon Musk has control over the algorithm and he uses it to boost right wing causes. So even if the Twitter has an equal number of users from both sides one side is getting an unfair advantage. Sources: https://cybernews.com/news/x-algorithm-changed-musk-boost-right-wing/ https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/x-has-disproportionately-pushed-right-wing-content-since-elon-musk-took-over-reports https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/17/24298669/musk-trump-endorsement-x-boosting-republican-posts-july-algorithm-change
Perhaps it’s because he’s boosting right wing causes that the numbers have balanced.
Again, I’m not saying this is a good thing, merely that it’s interesting. I would like a platform that’s properly diverse, and this is one interesting metric. However, given that total userbase has dropped, I wonder if it’s more attrition than anything that caused the balance. In any case, it’ll be interesting to see where it ends up, and hopefully it’s not just another Truth Social…
The problem is if he is boosting right-wing viewpoints and suppressing left-wing viewpoints then all the casual viewer ends up seeing is the right-wing viewpoints.
So just because left-wing content is on there doesn’t mean people can easily access or find it.
So it’s not really balanced in any way.
I honestly haven’t used Twitter/X in any meaningful capacity, so I don’t know what that looks like. But if he continually adjusts the algorithm to show a good mix, that would be a good thing. If he keeps pushing right wing stuff, it’ll end up like Truth Social.
If the CNN report is accurate (and I have no reason to suspect it’s not), then it’s probably in a good place. We’ll see in a few months though.
So, it mostly doesn’t mirror US demographics then, as the US, as a whole, skews away from the GOP.
Yes, I get it, “but the ballots”… ballot cast are not a 1:1 for the party lean of the US as a whole.
So, it mostly doesn’t mirror US demographics then, as the US, as a whole, skews away from the GOP.
They also skew away from the Democratic Party. Look at approval ratings for Biden and Trump if you don’t believe me, both were absolutely terrible, and Congress is arguably worse. I think most people hate both parties, but the system is rigged to support a two-party system.
If we look at issues, I think most people lean a bit more progressive on social issues and pretty moderate on fiscal issues. Even in my very red state, there are tons of pride flags out during pride month, and our conservative governor was openly supportive of trans issues (esp. kids). But neither party seems to do much to actually progress social issues, so I think people just end up getting pissed off. Democrats push on climate change and Republicans push tax cuts, when we really just want to legalize marijuana and let people marry whoever they want.
Have a link to the actual article and not some rando with a video without context?
I don’t think there’s an article, at least I couldn’t find one. I tried to find the original source, but internet searches suck these days (or maybe I’ve lost my touch).
Here’s a YT video that talks about it, but it’s also quite biased. The two anchors here are conservative and “libertarian” (I think Robbie Suave is more conservative than he claims). And here’s Sky News YT video about it (right-wing UK media IIRC).
I wish I had more to go on, and I’d really like to see the original story, but there you go.
I think this whole concept speaks to how differently we all use social networks. For some, it’s a passive news source. For others, it’s entertainment. For others, it’s a place to be social.
Ideological balance is the least important feature for me in picking a social network. I’m there to joke around and talk to interesting people. In real life, my friends and I don’t go “You know what bar we should go to? That new ideologically balanced one down on 2nd St.” (and then my horny friend says we should go to the bar where he met a hot girl once and we end up at TikTok1, AGAIN).
1 That’s a joke. I’m 40 and my friends pick bars based on proximity, beer selection, and how long they have the baby sitter for.
I’m more interested in ideological balance, because I’m looking for social media to curate news sources for me. If all I’m getting is conservative or progressive articles, it’s not doing its job.
I had a pretty good setup on Reddit with just the right subs to get a good ideological balance (despite Reddit being pretty left leaning), but I bailed when they pulled the API BS and I’m staying away due to their data harvesting. Lemmy is much worse than Reddit as far as bias goes, but it’s better than nothing I suppose. I’ve had to actually go back and follow news sources to rebalance my media consumption, which is a pain because there’s so much BS on news sites.
I don’t want to be social, and if I want entertainment, I’ll play video games or watch a movie/TV show. I just want to stay informed and hear other peoples’ takes on current events, ideally from a diverse set of perspectives. And yet, my main options are left wing or right wing sources, both of whom will misrepresent stuff and nobody will correct them.
I’m probably not going back to Twitter/X because I hate the format, but I am happy to see that at least someone thinks it’s somewhat balanced. I’m working on my own Reddit/Lemmy alternative with the express goal to make it easier to get a balanced feed, so hopefully some day I’ll be able to eat my cake and have it too.
Hahaha, they’re just now noticing? Rich.
And how will Bkuesky be any different? It won’t.
You’re measuring Bluesky with a different measuring stick than they are.
You’re measuring it with the “This is decentralized, and therefore not connected to corporate interests, and never can be” stick.
These journalists WORK FOR the corporate interests you left twitter (or maybe never had an account) over. They are measuring the stick by “These current users are just MAGA users in a cult”.
As long as Bluesky doesn’t start shifting right wing MAGA, it IS different for their purposes. It’s just their purposes are not YOUR purposes, and therefore they can still say that it’s different, and not have that be a lie. Doesn’t mean it’ll satisfy you any.
Bluesky has far more robust tools for blocking bad actors. You can subscribe to auto updating block lists which take these people off your feed.
Wow, that’s pessimistic
the same level of toxicity that I left reddit for seems to be permeating Lemmy, now.
Not surprising, considering that A) Lemmy is very similar software and B) a lot of the users are former redditors.
Just having downvotes creates toxicity.
Yeah, like I understand the reason for down votes, bur they are too often abused because the other people don’t like your opinion or don’t understand your humor
I know right??? So disappointing
Maybe, but not unrealistic. Bluesky has already begun their shift toward enshittification, changing their default sorting algorithm to one that favors the quantity of engagement over the quality. Usually when you see a platform making moves that are meant to drive user activity without adding anything substantially positive to the user experience, it’s a sign that they’re about to start monetizing the platform.
The sorting algorithm is really splitting hairs. It depends on what you follow and engage with, for me, most of my feed is furry stuff, so it doesn’t matter what the sorting looks like. Now, for someone using it for politics or news, sure, then it matters, but just interacting with an overall positive community, it doesn’t matter
I’m referring to Bluesky’s new reply sorting, which will put comments with more likes higher by default. Pretty much every platform that does this kind of sorting by default, does so because it drives up engagement. People are more likely to like/heart/favorite/whatever a comment if 100 other people have liked it than if just 1 liked it. And the more likely you are to like somebody’s comment, the more likely you are to open their profile and see the content they post. It’s a dark pattern designed to keep you scrolling.
Whenever a developer wants to encourage you to use their platform more and add your +1 to as many items as possible, it’s because they’re about to start serving you ads or trying to sell you something. The more times you refresh a page, the more ads you get served. You see this on Meta platforms, Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok… basically everything that sorts the “hottest” comments to the top.
A paid BSKY+ service is right around the corner, count on it.
Why it doesn’t matter
Maybe the goal is to get Musk to buy Bluesky and start all over again 🤷
deleted by creator
journalists flocking to a site built on the backs of trans people and they’ll still refuse to hire/interview trans people when talking about trans issues.
This is interesting. Why build on the backs? Did trans people contribute to it a lot, or are we talking about the early user base?
trans people (and sex workers too) were early adopters who left twitter for it and helped shaped the block list, safety features, and moderation system that it boasts today
Wow, that’s good to know. Did you know the blocking feature in Activity Pub also ended up there because of queer and feminist people?
Also reminds me of Party Block, a discontinued Twitter blocking app developed by a feminist tech-startup. And Shinigami Eyes of course. The blocking system of BlueSky seems to have best of both worlds. This is exciting!
I’m not serially online enough to understand what you mean, can you expand on this?
trans people are the reason why there’s robust safety and moderation tools on bsky but journalists, more often than not, refuse to hire or bring on trans people to discuss trans issues.
