←back to thread

Maybe Bluesky has "won"

(anderegg.ca)
461 points GavinAnderegg | 4 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.674s | source
Show context
alecco ◴[15 Nov 24 20:24 UTC] No.42150542[source]▶
If interesting people start posting interesting things on Bluesky we'll start going there. But, so far, we only see people posing and shoving it down our throats. Just like this post. We get it, you hate Musk and want to see X/twitter dead. Fine.

I'm not on Twitter and used to be on Mastodon so the idea of Bluesky per se sounds interesting. But so far it looks like a forced, desperate attempt by a very political group of people. And that's the opposite of what people like me would like to spend time on.

replies(5): >>42150566 #>>42150573 #>>42150578 #>>42151966 #>>42152037 #
gjsman-1000[dead post] ◴[15 Nov 24 20:26 UTC] No.42150566[source]▶
[flagged]
cosmic_cheese ◴[15 Nov 24 20:39 UTC] No.42150738[source]▶
An advantage of Bluesky over Twitter that’s valuable to a lot of people is the degree of control it gives. Algorithmic feeds are more precisely tunable so it’s easier to get them to show the things you want to see, starter packs make it easy to follow entire circles at once, and moderation tools are robust, which helps tamp down on spam, trolling, harassment, etc.

It feels more designed for meaningful interaction than it is engagement at all costs, which is probably why it’s common for people who've moved to have seen much higher numbers of substantiative replies to their posts despite having a fraction as many followers as they do on Twitter.

It may not catch on regardless, but I think it has the best shot of all the Twitter alternatives thus far.

replies(1): >>42152005 #
1. chucke1992 ◴[15 Nov 24 22:34 UTC] No.42152005[source]▶
All these advantages are only due to the fact that it has less users and thus it is cheaper to run it and less need to monetize it.
replies(2): >>42152333 #>>42153175 #
2. cosmic_cheese ◴[15 Nov 24 23:09 UTC] No.42152333[source]▶
Even if that’s true, it’s irrelevant from the user’s perspective. Regardless of the underlying reason, the result is a user experience that’s enough of an improvement that users feel motivated to migrate.

If Bluesky becomes dominant, it will likely eventually degrade too, at which point something will take its place. Such is the fate of social media apps. The only variable is how long the app can stave off that decay.

3. epistasis ◴[16 Nov 24 00:56 UTC] No.42153175[source]▶
Can you explain how any of these are due to it having less users, or being cheaper to run?

>An advantage of Bluesky over Twitter that’s valuable to a lot of people is the degree of control it gives. Algorithmic feeds are more precisely tunable so it’s easier to get them to show the things you want to see, starter packs make it easy to follow entire circles at once, and moderation tools are robust, which helps tamp down on spam, trolling, harassment, etc.

Your statement appears completely illogical without a good deal of explanation connecting these concrete statements to yours.

replies(1): >>42156152 #
4. chucke1992 ◴[16 Nov 24 12:52 UTC] No.42156152[source]▶
Twitter algorithmic feeds are designed to promote engagement even if you don'like something. It is important because more engagement with various content, means more clicks, more reactions and so on.

You get something you like, you get something don't like, click bait, then begin to argue etc. It is basically like a flea market with ads floating around and retailers promoting their stuff. All for the engagement.

But BlueSky creates isolated tables - like in a cafe. Sure they have more than 5 chairs, but it does promote engagement and closer to weekly clubs.