Most active commenters
  • (3)

←back to thread

Bluesky is currently gaining more than 1M users a day

(bsky.jazco.dev)
208 points henrijn | 21 comments | 16 Nov 24 21:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.569s | source | bottom
1. jsheard ◴[16 Nov 24 22:38 UTC] No.42160029[source]▶
On the topic of Bluesky stats, I just learned that blocks are effectively public via the API, so there's a hall of shame ranking the most blocked users on the site: https://vqv.app/blocks.html
replies(8): >>42160045 #>>42160065 #>>42160121 #>>42160257 #>>42160386 #>>42160619 #>>42160666 #>>42161161 #
2. ◴[16 Nov 24 22:40 UTC] No.42160045[source]▶
3. James_K ◴[16 Nov 24 22:42 UTC] No.42160065[source]▶
A lot of Brazilians there. I guess it makes sense that they are a large portion of the user-base after Twitter got banned.
replies(1): >>42160242 #
4. aucisson_masque ◴[16 Nov 24 22:48 UTC] No.42160121[source]▶
> a hall of shame

Usually that's the opposite that happen with these kind of people. They are going to look forward on being the at the top of the leaderboard, like a child doing stupid things only to get noticed by its parents.

replies(1): >>42160259 #
5. jsheard ◴[16 Nov 24 23:00 UTC] No.42160242[source]▶
I wonder what the backstory to two different Brazilian Taylor Swift fan accounts getting onto the most blocked list is...
replies(1): >>42160461 #
6. m3kw9 ◴[16 Nov 24 23:01 UTC] No.42160257[source]▶
i have a feeling by being on the list, it fuels more blocks, the rich get richer
7. hombre_fatal ◴[16 Nov 24 23:02 UTC] No.42160259[source]▶
Assuming blocks themselves are never childish. Jordan Peterson is on the list and he doesn't even use the site: https://bsky.app/profile/jordanbpeterson.bsky.social
replies(5): >>42160332 #>>42160360 #>>42160812 #>>42160901 #>>42161496 #
8. ronsor ◴[16 Nov 24 23:09 UTC] No.42160332{3}[source]▶
It's not even the real Jordan Peterson apparently.
9. TrueSlacker0 ◴[16 Nov 24 23:12 UTC] No.42160360{3}[source]▶
Seems odd to be one of the most blocked with zero posts
10. zft ◴[16 Nov 24 23:14 UTC] No.42160386[source]▶
Top 100 BlueSky accounts Hall of fame https://www.graphtracks.com/1h
11. stubish ◴[16 Nov 24 23:24 UTC] No.42160461{3}[source]▶
Probably no fault of the feed, so not really a hall of shame. People you follow repost the feeds because they want to share with the world, and the posts end up in your timeline. You block them if you are not interested or if it is overwhelming, without having to unfollow anyone.
12. hughw ◴[16 Nov 24 23:47 UTC] No.42160619[source]▶
also https://clearsky.app/
13. khaki54 ◴[16 Nov 24 23:55 UTC] No.42160666[source]▶
Kind of shows the echo chamber. Looks like the Jordan Peterson account, which has never posted anything, is around number 14.
14. winwang ◴[17 Nov 24 00:20 UTC] No.42160812{3}[source]▶
There was a script I once saw for Twitter where it blocked all users within some follower/followee radius of a set group of people.

For public discourse, I wonder what the right level of agreeable "echo-chambering" is.

replies(2): >>42161523 #>>42161551 #
15. arp242 ◴[17 Nov 24 00:34 UTC] No.42160901{3}[source]▶
It has an "Impersonation" tag: "Pretending to be someone else without permission." Dunno if that's accurate though.

But let's be real: Jordan B. Peterson on Bluesky is not going to be a different Jordan B. Peterson than he is anywhere else. If you don't want to interact with Jordan B. Peterson on e.g. Twitter, then you probably don't want to interact with him on Bluesky either.

replies(1): >>42161958 #
16. mulmen ◴[17 Nov 24 02:27 UTC] No.42161496{3}[source]▶
I don’t use Bluesky. How is it childish? If Peterson has no presence then how is a block possible? If a block requires presence then blocking Jordan Peterson seems like a reasonable thing for a person to do.
17. ◴[17 Nov 24 02:33 UTC] No.42161523{4}[source]▶
18. ◴[17 Nov 24 02:39 UTC] No.42161551{4}[source]▶
19. taeric ◴[17 Nov 24 04:26 UTC] No.42161958{4}[source]▶
To an extent, I agree. In particular, I will not seek out that guy.

However, feels virtue signal like to block someone that isn't there. Might as well block "random jerk." What is the value of blocking people by name that may not exist?

replies(1): >>42163266 #
20. rsynnott ◴[17 Nov 24 10:25 UTC] No.42163266{5}[source]▶
He likely just appears on a lot of imported Twitter blocklists.
replies(1): >>42163532 #
21. taeric ◴[17 Nov 24 11:28 UTC] No.42163532{6}[source]▶
Ah. That is a fair point.