←back to thread

553 points bookofjoe | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.05s | source
Show context
megaman821 ◴[] No.43654757[source]
As a lurker on both Bluesky and Twitter, I find Bluesky is a much more hostile place. Twitter is much more absurd but there is not as much anger.
replies(25): >>43654879 #>>43654911 #>>43654964 #>>43654978 #>>43654981 #>>43655179 #>>43658062 #>>43658076 #>>43658200 #>>43658690 #>>43659029 #>>43659158 #>>43659250 #>>43659251 #>>43659639 #>>43659684 #>>43659724 #>>43659908 #>>43660101 #>>43660296 #>>43660933 #>>43661119 #>>43665491 #>>43667438 #>>43667522 #
doright ◴[] No.43658200[source]
So after the honeymoon with Bluesky ends, what will be the next friendlier social media platform? And after that one? Will this just keep repeating?
replies(4): >>43659307 #>>43660117 #>>43667324 #>>43669140 #
1. jeffparsons ◴[] No.43659307[source]
If a new a Twitter/Bluesky replacement is to promote civil discourse, it will need to _restrict_ reach as a core feature. Which... seems antithetical to a social media platform. But as long as "enragement = engagement" holds true, each new social media platform will eventually devolve into the same kind of cesspool as its predecessors.
replies(1): >>43660944 #
2. thatnerdyguy ◴[] No.43660944[source]
But...restricted reach is exactly how Bluesky works. People you follow show up in your feed, and only them. You can look at other feeds that are not as restricted, but you are making that choice.
replies(1): >>43666373 #
3. gs17 ◴[] No.43666373[source]
Bluesky has the "Discover" feed that is definitely not only people you follow (sometimes, when it feels like it, they'll be on top of it).
replies(1): >>43709759 #
4. thatnerdyguy ◴[] No.43709759{3}[source]
Correct. But you choose to look at that feed. It's not the only one available to you. I have like 6 different feeds at any one time.