←back to thread

Bluesky is ushering in a pick-your-own algorithm era of social media

(www.newscientist.com)
190 points amichail | 1 comments | 20 Nov 24 12:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.234s | source
Show context
kps ◴[20 Nov 24 15:15 UTC] No.42194585[source]▶
I hope this will become true; it's the reason I made an account as soon as possible (not the one that matches my name), have followed hashtag-based feeds with mixed success, and donated to my favourite client (tokimeki.blue). I want to follow topics, in the fashion of Usenet or Reddit, not people. If I'm interested in dandelions, I want to read Jay Expert's posts about dandelions, not their posts about their breakfast (unless it's dandelions) or favourite TV show (unless it's about dandelions).

I fear the recent US election is going to kill it, though.

replies(1): >>42195067 #
attilakun ◴[20 Nov 24 15:55 UTC] No.42195067[source]▶
> I fear the recent US election is going to kill it, though.

How? Aren’t there a lot more people migrating to Bluesky now in light of Musk’s antics on X?

replies(6): >>42195295 #>>42195312 #>>42195335 #>>42195348 #>>42195543 #>>42195614 #
BadHumans ◴[20 Nov 24 16:11 UTC] No.42195295[source]▶
Musk has the president-elect in his pocket and Musk hates BlueSky. The goal is to be the only source of propaganda and let right-wing conspiracies fly unchecked on social media.
replies(1): >>42196984 #
cmxch ◴[20 Nov 24 18:52 UTC] No.42196984[source]▶
That’s a bit reductive. What says that Bluesky doesn’t have their flavor of propaganda that suits their preferences? That is, what makes the Bluesky perspective more valid other than just being on a platform that hates Twitter?

About anything that is currently legal and permitted on Twitter seems to be specifically prohibited by design (and can’t be opted out of wrt moderation) in Bluesky. If the Mastodon case is any guide, there will be a great effort to ensure that nothing wrt software can conflict with it.

replies(2): >>42197417 #>>42197625 #
1. BadHumans ◴[20 Nov 24 19:46 UTC] No.42197417[source]▶
> What says that Bluesky doesn’t have their flavor of propaganda that suits their preferences?

Nothing. They probably do.

> That is, what makes the Bluesky perspective more valid other than just being on a platform that hates Twitter?

Nothing. It probably isn't.

> About anything that is currently legal and permitted on Twitter seems to be specifically prohibited by design

Trump's FCC chief has signaled he would like to remove Section 230 which would make these things that are prohibited a downside for BlueSky and open them up to litigation and I doubt they have the wallet to litigate like Musk does.