←back to thread

Bluesky is currently gaining more than 1M users a day

(bsky.jazco.dev)
208 points henrijn | 2 comments | 16 Nov 24 21:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
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 #
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 #
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 #
arp242 ◴[17 Nov 24 00:34 UTC] No.42160901[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 #
taeric ◴[17 Nov 24 04:26 UTC] No.42161958[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 #
1. rsynnott ◴[17 Nov 24 10:25 UTC] No.42163266[source]▶
He likely just appears on a lot of imported Twitter blocklists.
replies(1): >>42163532 #
2. taeric ◴[17 Nov 24 11:28 UTC] No.42163532[source]▶
Ah. That is a fair point.