←back to thread

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

(petapixel.com)
553 points bookofjoe | 1 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
megaman821 ◴[11 Apr 25 15:14 UTC] 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 #
Molitor5901 ◴[11 Apr 25 15:46 UTC] No.43655179[source]▶
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.
replies(8): >>43655251 #>>43657988 #>>43658077 #>>43658450 #>>43659445 #>>43659596 #>>43660179 #>>43663891 #
lukev ◴[11 Apr 25 22:37 UTC] No.43659445[source]▶
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...

replies(3): >>43662748 #>>43665954 #>>43669241 #
1. gs17 ◴[12 Apr 25 16:41 UTC] No.43665954[source]▶
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.