Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Maybe Bluesky has "won"

    (anderegg.ca)
    461 points GavinAnderegg | 14 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 1.161s | source | bottom
    Show context
    llm_nerd ◴[15 Nov 24 20:33 UTC] No.42150659[source]▶
    Whatever one's feelings about these microblogging services, one truth that has become clear is that none of them -- X, Bluesky, Threads, or anything similar -- should be considered "the commons". They're private businesses with their own motives that are often in complete conflict with your own.

    A lot of people made the mistake of treating Twitter like a commons and have been burned. My local police force posts all notices about traffic, missing people, foiled crimes, etc., on Twitter out of inertia. That is wholly inappropriate, and wasn't appropriate even when before it become some brain-worm infected oligarch's rhetoric megaphone. The same goes for many organizations, politicians, and so on. It was never the right choice. And the solution to one bad choice isn't to move to the same mistake on some other service. These people and orgs need absolute and complete ownership over their own platform.

    Mastodon / ActivityPub seems like it might scratch that itch, but what a bloated sloppy mess that is. The right idea, with the wrong implementation.

    Honestly would prefer all these people and places just published RSS feeds.

    replies(28): >>42150683 #>>42150684 #>>42150744 #>>42150850 #>>42150873 #>>42150981 #>>42151263 #>>42151430 #>>42151636 #>>42151681 #>>42151708 #>>42151751 #>>42151778 #>>42151821 #>>42151829 #>>42151891 #>>42151943 #>>42152097 #>>42152127 #>>42152162 #>>42152180 #>>42152186 #>>42152189 #>>42152190 #>>42152192 #>>42152442 #>>42153655 #>>42154091 #
    1. krisoft ◴[15 Nov 24 22:14 UTC] No.42151821[source]▶
    > That is wholly inappropriate, and wasn't appropriate even when before it become some brain-worm infected oligarch's rhetoric megaphone.

    When you want to reach people you go to where the people are. You fish where the fish is. It is that simple. People did not join twitter because the police was posting there, the police post on twitter because that is where they can reach the people.

    replies(7): >>42151962 #>>42151973 #>>42152095 #>>42152182 #>>42152229 #>>42152255 #>>42176494 #
    2. pseudalopex ◴[15 Nov 24 22:29 UTC] No.42151962[source]▶
    Twitter is a place where they can reach some people. Using it was appropriate. Using it exclusively was not.
    replies(1): >>42152153 #
    3. johnnyanmac ◴[15 Nov 24 22:31 UTC] No.42151973[source]▶
    Twitter almost literally started as a place to get updates on celebrities, designed closely to UI's seen in tickerboard updates. So the metaphor is more apt than you'd think.
    4. asah ◴[15 Nov 24 22:42 UTC] No.42152095[source]▶
    Twitter was never a majority of Americans let alone 80-90+% share that justifies being a single outlet for a taxpayer funded agency.
    replies(1): >>42152137 #
    5. krapp ◴[15 Nov 24 22:46 UTC] No.42152137[source]▶
    An account costs nothing. You get an intern or someone to post on it now and then. It isn't exactly a deep commitment.
    replies(1): >>42152201 #
    6. krisoft ◴[15 Nov 24 22:47 UTC] No.42152153[source]▶
    > Using it was appropriate. Using it exclusively was not.

    That I can agree with. Usually what I have seen, at least where i live, is that no public body used it exclusively. They still had a website, they still talked with journalist, talked with radios, used flyers, whatever was appropriate in each situation. (Or at least they tried, not saying everyone was getting it always right.)

    7. roenxi ◴[15 Nov 24 22:50 UTC] No.42152182[source]▶
    The people aren't on Twitter, pretty sure every time I've checked the stats Twitter users are a relative minority. It caters to the sort of people who enjoy communication without discussion - that might be the police's target audience for their communication but it isn't most people.

    I've been annoyed over the years because (not having an account) sometimes Twitter won't let me look at Tweets. Hopefully none of them contained useful info.

    replies(1): >>42152274 #
    8. apsurd ◴[15 Nov 24 22:53 UTC] No.42152201{3}[source]▶
    That's not the argument at all.

    These public entities post _exclusively_ on Twitter as if it's the public square. It's not and it shouldn't be. The argument is not about how easy it is to create a Twitter account.

    replies(1): >>42152243 #
    9. ◴[15 Nov 24 22:57 UTC] No.42152229[source]▶
    10. irundebian ◴[15 Nov 24 22:58 UTC] No.42152243{4}[source]▶
    Please give me an example of a police station which post exclusively on Twitter.
    replies(1): >>42154700 #
    11. paxys ◴[15 Nov 24 23:00 UTC] No.42152255[source]▶
    Twitter used to be a good way to share information because the tweet link would expand into all the info you needed to see, regardless of whether you were a Twitter user or not. Today it sits behind an auth wall, and so is inaccessible to a majority of the population.
    12. noslenwerdna ◴[15 Nov 24 23:02 UTC] No.42152274[source]▶
    Journalists are (or were) on Twitter though
    13. throwthrowrow ◴[16 Nov 24 06:02 UTC] No.42154700{5}[source]▶
    Does DOGE (Dept of Govt Efficiency) post exclusively on Twitter? Just wondering
    14. consteval ◴[18 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] No.42176494[source]▶
    This is because the US has a history of inadequate public infrastructure. Local safety alerts and things of that nature are a public service, and there should be a system in place to perform them. There isn't, and still really isn't to this day. Sure, we have amber alerts and such but that's not really the same thing.