←back to thread

Maybe Bluesky has "won"

(anderegg.ca)
461 points GavinAnderegg | 1 comments | 15 Nov 24 19:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
kettlecorn ◴[15 Nov 24 20:23 UTC] No.42150525[source]▶
The competitive advantage to BlueSky, over Twitter / X, is that there's tremendous value in connecting intelligent and kind people while maintaining a certain quality standard.

Twitter / X, for political reasons, allowed extremely toxic behavior while at the same time disempowered communities from moderating themselves. If you force each individual user to manually block every troll, bot, or disgusting person it's a losing battle and low quality speech will overwhelm conversations. X folks know that but did it anyways.

It's also becoming more and more clear that we need a relatively neutral medium for free speech. Musk claimed to be building that on X but then did exactly the opposite. It's very hard to trust the algorithm isn't being manipulated in one way or another.

On BlueSky it's incredible how much value is already being produced by connecting intelligent and creative folks as compared to what Twitter became.

replies(4): >>42150556 #>>42150562 #>>42150658 #>>42152409 #
caekislove ◴[15 Nov 24 20:26 UTC] No.42150562[source]▶
Get real. It's a liberal echo chamber. 90%+ of the posts there are anti-Trump and/or anti-Musk.
replies(4): >>42150682 #>>42150775 #>>42151207 #>>42151687 #
vehemenz[dead post] ◴[15 Nov 24 20:35 UTC] No.42150682[source]▶
[flagged]
caekislove ◴[15 Nov 24 21:41 UTC] No.42151462[source]▶
Imma let you finish, but since Trump won the popular vote by millions of votes, the word "reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
replies(3): >>42151679 #>>42152073 #>>42195209 #
1. vehemenz ◴[20 Nov 24 16:04 UTC] No.42195209[source]▶
If you'll recall, many of the same people who voted for Trump despised him for his character flaws when he was a Democrat, pre-2015 and pre-birtherism, which again suggests there are more than enough apolitical reasons not to like him. People seem to forget this, but maybe I'm the elder statesman around here.

That aside, why wouldn't "reasonable" do the heavy lifting, and how is that a problem? Should we come to some other conclusion about the people that voted for him? Aren't we then forced to say these reasonable people just didn't know any better due to ignorance or lack of education? Somehow, that doesn't seem like an improvement. I'm okay with saying these are unreasonable people as well.