3 ms·

This an a similar story a few days ago from Science [1] were both flag killed within an hour of submission, then eventually revived by some mechanism. I'm curi

by tzs 2y ago

This an a similar story a few days ago from Science [1] were both flag killed within an hour of submission, then eventually revived by some mechanism. I'm curious why that is. I didn't see anything in either of them that should be particularly controversial. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42198278 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42198278

hagbard_c 2y ago
The recent deluge of positive press BS gets is somewhat suspect. BS seems to be following the same route as pre-X Twitter clones did in that those who either got banned (pre-X Twitter) or decided to abandon (post-Trump election X) Twitter/X are often ideologically driven. Where this means platforms like Gab and Parler took in a large number of guns & god types it means that BS is taking in the pronouns brigade, the perpetually oppressed, victimhood fetishists and more. This has the effect of turning these platforms into echo chambers for the 'right' (Gab etc.) and 'left' (pre-X Twitter and now BS). An echo chamber is a lousy place to discuss science since all you'll hear is yourself, repeated endlessly. Science (the magazine) should know that but it, like Nature and Scientific American [1] has abandoned the principle of keeping its editorial/political bias at a minimum. [1] https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1857610335005630769 https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1857610335005630769
aaron695 2y ago
We've seen political blogspam before with Mastodon and a little Threads. Bluesky does seem different (it might be a real successor), but HN is at the random monkeys stage. It's just NPCs hating on Twitter as the media tells them to. Here, only an Imposter scientist chases - 'a place of joy'. Real science is anarchy. A hacker should not be caring what the fakers in academia are saying. As other comments correctly point out, if Bluesky becomes popular it'll be the same as Twitter anyway, logically it'll be worse... Bluesky has time to pivot but HN isn't mature enough to model how they might be a success.
- mgraybosch 2y ago
  [dead]

by tzs 2y ago

hagbard_c 2y ago

The recent deluge of positive press BS gets is somewhat suspect. BS seems to be following the same route as pre-X Twitter clones did in that those who either got banned (pre-X Twitter) or decided to abandon (post-Trump election X) Twitter/X are often ideologically driven. Where this means platforms like Gab and Parler took in a large number of guns & god types it means that BS is taking in the pronouns brigade, the perpetually oppressed, victimhood fetishists and more. This has the effect of turning these platforms into echo chambers for the 'right' (Gab etc.) and 'left' (pre-X Twitter and now BS). An echo chamber is a lousy place to discuss science since all you'll hear is yourself, repeated endlessly. Science (the magazine) should know that but it, like Nature and Scientific American [1] has abandoned the principle of keeping its editorial/political bias at a minimum. [1] https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1857610335005630769 https://x.com/michaelshermer/status/1857610335005630769

aaron695 2y ago

We've seen political blogspam before with Mastodon and a little Threads. Bluesky does seem different (it might be a real successor), but HN is at the random monkeys stage. It's just NPCs hating on Twitter as the media tells them to. Here, only an Imposter scientist chases - 'a place of joy'. Real science is anarchy. A hacker should not be caring what the fakers in academia are saying. As other comments correctly point out, if Bluesky becomes popular it'll be the same as Twitter anyway, logically it'll be worse... Bluesky has time to pivot but HN isn't mature enough to model how they might be a success.

mgraybosch 2y ago
[dead]