Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

I'm pretty left leaning and I don't like Bluesky. For me, it's too hostile and too much of an angry echo chamber. X is scattered wildly but I with muting I have been able to shape to get a more reasonable feed.

Likewise here, the amount of just pure made up crap/misinformation on X has definitely increased (perhaps because accounts get paid for views/engagement now) or the algorithm seems to push it more, but it's not an echo chamber.

I have at least 100 words on my X muted word list and it's just about usable.

Same here. I'd agree with many of the political positions on Bluesky but it looks like the left equivalent of what Truth Social is on the right - Bluesky recently started publishing home addresses of DOGE employees, with the intent seeming to be to target them with violence.

As is the case with most ideological echo chambers, they devolve into struggle sessions. You find the same thing happening in the niche right-wing movement sections of twitter, it's just "this person is secretly indian/jewish" instead of "this person is secretly a racist/xyzphobe".

Twitter has the advantage of a broader range so you can escape that while bluesky is almost exclusively used based on strong ideological motivation. It's raison d'etre at this point is basically and highly political so this was bound to happen.

I don't understand why people struggle with either site. Follow only people you want to see. Both sites allow you to only see posts from those accounts. Problem solved.

Unless you want to follow Adobe, who were just driven out by a mob of angry people

There are a lot of people I'd love to see content from on all of the platforms who aren't where I want them to be, for a variety of reasons. That's not really a great argument.

And what about the people who sometimes post interesting things and sometimes post distilled insanity? They're incentivized to do so.

Do you want to follow them or not? Up to you. No one is incentivized to do anything other than post what they want and follow who they want.

Then you decide if the positives outweigh the negatives and unfollow them or not.

This particular situation is why the only thing I miss from Twitter at this point is the ability to mute an account's reposts rather than the full account.

This is a weird argument because Bluesky doesn't have a "feed"... by default you see only the people you follow unless you subscribe to specific other feeds.

So you followed a bunch of people you didn't like? That says more about you than the platform...

It's more the content creators who bear the brunt of toxic rage. Who you follow doesn't solve that problem

> the content creators

This is IMO the problem. I don't use these sites to follow "content creators". For the most part I'm following normal people who happen to say things I find interesting.

Our deepest condolences. Losing a marketing bullhorn is always difficult.

I don't think they were saying it's a problem for people following content creators. It's more a problem for content creators, because they usually want the greatest reach possible, so they want to be on platforms that people use, which requires them to put up with the emotional swingings of the platforms' userbases.

If you want to say you don't care about having content creators on your platform, that's at least a coherent take. But you still have to think about the business models of the platforms that keep them around-- short of collecting payments from every ordinary user, there needs to be buy-in from someone wanting reach, whether that's corporate accounts, individual content creators, or someone else. And do you actually know all of those "normal people who happen to say things you find interesting" in real life, or did you find some of them online, i.e. they're basically influencers/content creators with you as an audience member?

I got an extension to hide every blue check user, twitter is wonderful nkw

The argument is that this is now part of that list of reasons. Why acknowledge a problem but disregard one of the causes?

That is indeed what I'm saying. I treat social media more like I treated Usenet back in the day. To me that's a superior model than the influencer model.

Ok I guess I'll simplify the point for you: You can't follow the "people you want to see" if the platform is so hostile that the people you want to see are driven from it.

My comment wasn't just about Adobe

There is a Discovery feed by default for sure.

X is a cesspit. Bluesky is a cult and echo chamber. Both should be avoided if you care about your mental sanity.

Social media was a catastrophic mistake.

Being intolerant of soulless rent-seeking corporations doesn’t turn you into a cool person. It just shows you are intolerant.

There must be a name for the phenomenon when a minority escapes persecution and hate, and upon reaching their promised land become intolerant and hateful of any outside group.

There's a default feed, and it's awful. Part of why I gave up on the site, it never seemed to "get" me, their features for tuning it don't work, and the alternative feeds weren't what I wanted at all.

Nah, it makes gp cool as fuck actually.

If there's no feed there is no way to see any posts of people you might want to follow. So I highly doubt there isn't any feed.

YouTube did this for a while, up until a few months ago if you weren't logged in you'd literally just get an empty page and a search bar at the top as it wouldn't recommend any videos at all. That was temporary for a reason.