Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    461 points GavinAnderegg | 13 comments | | HN request time: 0.684s | source | bottom
    1. okhuman ◴[] No.42150575[source]
    There will be no great migration like we saw in 2010 with users shifting from Digg to Reddit but, instead, only the slow trickling escapes of users to more dispersed communities.

    Here the human condition can flourish in a more localized way, with more participation (less lurking). No more winner takes all.

    replies(3): >>42150777 #>>42150791 #>>42150810 #
    2. hnthrowaway6543 ◴[] No.42150777[source]
    The real issue is that none of these alternatives (Threads, Mastodon, Bluesky) offer anything other than "we're not Twitter".

    Digg to Reddit was a unique case, because Digg very specifically fucked up their site, badly, with the V4 update. Reddit was in a great spot to pick up users from Digg because of not only having a similar overarching purpose as a link aggregator, but additional features like subreddits which enabled more smaller and casual link sharing and comment sections. It was a clear upgrade from Digg V4. I do think that Reddit would have eventually overtaken Digg anyway, and V4 only sped up the process.

    Technically and product-wise, there's not a whole lot wrong with Twitter right now. If you're on there to look at funny memes, cat pictures, celebrity news and pornography -- which encapsulates about 98% of Twitter use cases -- it still functions much better than the alternatives. The migrations are happening for meta reasons, either political or ToS-related (specifically, X claiming they can use images you post for AI training). This isn't a recipe for long-term success, it's a precursor for people making bunch of noise for a month and then heading back to Twitter.

    As someone who doesn't really participate in these large social networks -- even modern HN is way too mainstream for me honestly -- I do think it's a good thing people get off them, though. Smaller communities are a good thing. Shouting your loudest, hottest political takes on Twitter so you can pat yourself on the back for 10k likes is a fast track to mental health issues.

    replies(4): >>42151424 #>>42151503 #>>42151633 #>>42153893 #
    3. Symmetry ◴[] No.42150791[source]
    It's definitely something that's happened community by community. A lot of space news I care about is still just on Twitter but urbanism stuff has mostly moved to Bluesky, for instance.
    4. downWidOutaFite ◴[] No.42150810[source]
    Social networks' usefulness is proportional to the size of the network so they are naturally winner takes all markets.
    replies(1): >>42152365 #
    5. astrange ◴[] No.42151424[source]
    > Technically and product-wise, there's not a whole lot wrong with Twitter right now.

    The Bluesky app both performs better and uses much less battery than Twitter does. I think because it uses Google ads now, but not sure.

    Twitter also has disk space leaks - I regularly find the app has gone up to 3GB or so. (And it's not from image caching, seems to be an SQLite db of all accounts I've seen posts from.)

    replies(1): >>42151603 #
    6. lthornberry ◴[] No.42151503[source]
    The decision to promote blue check replies is a product-level decision that has made the user experience much, much worse
    replies(1): >>42155639 #
    7. jeffgreco ◴[] No.42151603{3}[source]
    Bluesky app is becoming a fine React Native exemplar, and it's been a blast watching former Facebook React guy Dan Abramov, now working at Bluesky, start using Native for the first time. https://bsky.app/profile/danabra.mov
    8. multjoy ◴[] No.42151633[source]
    > Technically and product-wise, there's not a whole lot wrong with Twitter right now.

    The app is a bin-fire.

    9. volkk ◴[] No.42152365[source]
    unless you have two enormous networks where one happens to be libertarian/right leaning and the other is mostly very left. both have huge audiences and can likely thrive just fine on their own. i don't particularly think it's healthy, but it seems like that's just how humans are.
    replies(1): >>42153632 #
    10. beeflet ◴[] No.42153632{3}[source]
    I think that if you have a neutral social network and a politically-charged social network, the neutral one will attract more eyeballs. People like to see ideas challenged and debated. Heavily-moderated and single-sided networks (Mastodon, Truth social, etc.) are simply boring compared to celebrity drama and political clashes on twitter.

    What you have in the modern internet is that left-leaning users avoid networks that aren't moderated in their favor (in a conscious attempt to prevent moving the overton window), which leads to right-wing takeover (and eventually death of the social network because there are only right-wingers, see the graveyard of reddit alternatives). This trend would have been reversed a decade ago.

    replies(1): >>42190091 #
    11. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42153893[source]
    > Digg very specifically fucked up their site, badly,

    And Twitter didn't? They use the "nazis at a bar" metaphor for a reason. UX is not the only way to screw up a site. Ashley Madison didn't torpedo because of a bad UI redesign.

    Even on a product level, the change to not hide tweets from blocked accounts may as well have been a Digg v4 for high profile people. There was no profit to be had here and no one to gain with this update. Purely ideaologically driven.

    > it still functions much better than the alternatives.

    in which ways? Genuinely curious. All these social media feeds, by design, all just blended into the Instagram/tiktok mush of infinite scrolling and predictive "you might like this!" sorts of algorithms to meximize engagement. None feel much easier/harder.

    12. blitzar ◴[] No.42155639{3}[source]
    + the decision to change blue check from relevant accounts to scammers, spam accounts and grifters
    13. downWidOutaFite ◴[] No.42190091{4}[source]
    So Gab, Parler, Truth Social, etc were all left-leaning?