6 ms·

My experience is that fundamentally there's nothing better with Bluesky or Mastodon when compared to Twitter. They're all toxic doom scrolling applications and

My experience is that fundamentally there's nothing better with Bluesky or Mastodon when compared to Twitter. They're all toxic doom scrolling applications and if one does use them, it will be a good idea to control your usage as if it was cocaine.

emseetech 2y ago
Right now Bluesky's feed is time-based (although there is a suggestions tab). This will change as advertiser needs take over, but at least for the time being it's a noticeable difference.
daghamm 2y ago
Yes, but hopefully it is more free speech than om twitter where Elon wants to decide what you can and can't see. It is well known that he is obsessed that things that align with his own views get more visibility while things he doesn't like is suppressed https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-twitter-engineers-boost-his-tweets-after-biden-got-more-views/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-...
- fastball 2y ago
  And that doesn't apply to the powers that be at other social networks (or management at Twitter pre-Elon)?
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    It certainly doesn't seem to so far.
  - JKCalhoun 2y ago
    I'm not on Twitter. And the jury is still out on BlueSky. I'm happy to abandon BlueSky though as soon as it is revealed to be a shitsocket.
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
    Pre-Elon moderation was (somewhat) sensible. Every online space needs a janitorial crew to keep it from turning into a wasteland (look at 4chan /b/, and even b isn't completely unmoderated). But it didn't take actions at the emotional whims of a megalomaniac ruler.
    - fastball 2y ago
      It took actions based on the emotional / political whims of various random people though, right? Maybe not from a single megalomaniacal ruler, but that seems like a distinction without a difference.
    - meowface 2y ago
      The funny thing is that if you filter by the most active posters, I believe Twitter now very possibly (I'd even say likely) has a higher ratio of far-right posters than 4chan /b/ currently does.
      - fastball 2y ago
        Being far-right is not what made /b/ a wasteland, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
- jl6 2y ago
  “These sites are all as bad as each other” remains a very workable hypothesis.
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    Also a very lazy approach.
- 4bpp 2y ago
  Before the other side took hold of a major platform and started doing it to their ends, "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach", "you don't have the right to a megaphone" etc. were maxims that were regularly fielded by pundits in defense of shadowbanning and any thumbprints being discovered on the algorithmic scale (though they were never so confident in it as to make the manipulation explicit upfront before it was revealed). The "my free speech is being taken away; they are just being moderated for the common good" conjugation is something that is in fact shared between both camps. The only stable solution going forward may in fact be the pillarisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation) that we are already seeing emerge, which will leave both sides in a state of perpetual discontent about having no means to force their message upon unwilling recipients on the other but at least let the like-minded interact with each other consensually.
  - meowkit 2y ago
    Great wiki link thanks for sharing. Also commenting to reiterate that if one spends just a little time (with an open mind) in any of the camps (X/Mastodon/Bluesky, whatever) its just so obvious that while the messages differ, the behaviors are exactly the same. In most contexts we prefer consensus - its just more energy efficient! Your brain is going to expend more energy critically listening and rewiring thoughts when new evidence is presented. Its hard even for the best of us. Pillarisation from a modeling perspective is interesting. I wonder if that could be codified at a legal level, and then anyone running for public positions of power would be required to have their own media algorithms curated by the public.
  - tehjoker 2y ago
    it wont work well bc ppl need enemies to fight for engagement. without that ppl just get bored
- spinach 2y ago
  It's interesting how this conversation about free speech on twitter really only came up after Elon Musk took over, even though it was terrible before Musk. If you had opinions on certain spicy topics that went against the American Democrat left you would be suspended until you removed the post or banned. There was even the "Twitter Files" which documented some of this. It actually seems more open to me now, only that people who got used to being able to ban people they didn't like so they left. Yes, Musk does things are suspicious, but overall I've found the experience better, as someone who holds moderate views.
Tarsul 2y ago
I stil don't understand why none of these sites counts downvotes for their algorithm. Look at HN which does; the best comments are at the top which means that the user sees the more interesting posts first. And troll posts would never rise to the top. There's a lot of tinkering that could provide which is the best up/downvotes-algorithm but imo it simply does not work without downvoting. E.g. Tiktok allows a lot of options to downrank things that you do not like, meaning the user who curates his own feed gets a stream of posts that are more aligned with what he wants than anywhere else. And that's why TikTok won.
- luma 2y ago
  Social media orgs discovered a while back that what they want is "engagement", not "good content". Enraging content is as good as "good" content in terms of clicks, and downvotes would bury that enraging content. Making you mad is as good as making you feel any other thing in terms of engagement.
  - Tarsul 2y ago
    yeah that's the story that I read a lot. But it doesn't make sense. E.g. I don't use Twitter because it's just a shitshow (e.g. even before Musk took over). Of course the algorithm from Twitter doesn't see it like that because it never analyzed me. It only analyzes those who are there not those who are not there. Thus, there's a hole in their algorithm. Or in other words: It's a short-termin optimizing algo (for those who are already there), not a long-term optimizer (long-term user growth).
- biddit 2y ago
  To my understanding, removing downvoting removes a vector of abuse. ie: "downvote brigades" on Reddit While Twitter doesn't have downvoting, it is still dealing with "report brigades" - various interest groups will organize via Telegram (or similar) to mass-report tweets they don't like. I wonder if you could strike a balance by incorporating downvotes as a visual metric, but not using it to rank content, thus allowing the expression of dislike while removing the abuse vector.
- saagarjha 2y ago
mogoh 2y ago
Fediverse does not have to be doom scrolling if you just follow accounts around your hobbies and interests and filter certain keywords.
thrance 2y ago
I use none of these, and generally agree that the world would be a better place if we could magically get rid of all social media. But Twitter is filled with much, much more hate and disinformation than its alternatives. I'd say it is definitely worse than the others.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  Serious question: would you include HN under the umbrella of 'social media'? If not, why not, where is the line?
  - bookofjoe 2y ago
    This is the best comment on this thread: I hope others answer your question. IMHO HN is social media, in fact the ONLY social media where I read the posts and comments, oftimes more informative and interesting than the posts. I post to X many times daily but that's all I do there, using it as a sort of commonplace book/journal. I never bother looking at my feed.
    - sureglymop 2y ago
      Do you think that a big part of that could be the financial incentive to be "popular" on Twitter? I mean, on hacker news it doesn't seem like a person gains any long term advantage from having their posts engaged with and upvoted. That is to say, the focus is on the content and not on the profiles/usernames. There is no explicit advertising and most content is posted to create interesting discussion about it. For me, the idea of twitter style micro blogging itself is a turn off. I always thought the arbitrary character limit was inherently a bad idea and "threads" are a terrible solution. Threads force one to split up a message and allow pieces of it to be taken out of context, retweeted and even quoted. Threads are a great propaganda tool because with every follow up "part", engagement decreases. People see the first part of a thread and only look at that, social behavior that can be abused when posting. Even it's main feature set is antithetical to accurately publishing information. It gets much worse when official institutions use it as their official communications channel and a login gate is in place. I actually don't even think this is malicious but moreso bad design and failure to anticipate what rhe platform could turn into when it was first conceived.
8organicbits 2y ago
I think Mastodons API-centric approach has lead to user-friendly results that feel fundamentally different. Mastodon gives me an in-order timeline of just the accounts I follow. I configured it to hide images by default, reduce animations, and to require user action to load more posts (no infinite scroll). It feels so much more tuned to my well-being versus apps that are tuned to maximize adverisement views by trapping you in doom scrolling.
schism15 2y ago
"The toxicity is coming from inside the house!" I agree. These platforms are best when the communities are smaller. The main tipping point will be when it becomes perceived (just perceived, even) as a viable option for advertising/monetization. The only real option is to just keep pushing to the next frontier...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

emseetech 2y ago

Right now Bluesky's feed is time-based (although there is a suggestions tab). This will change as advertiser needs take over, but at least for the time being it's a noticeable difference.

daghamm 2y ago

Yes, but hopefully it is more free speech than om twitter where Elon wants to decide what you can and can't see. It is well known that he is obsessed that things that align with his own views get more visibility while things he doesn't like is suppressed https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-twitter-engineers-boost-his-tweets-after-biden-got-more-views/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/02/report-musk-had-...

fastball 2y ago
And that doesn't apply to the powers that be at other social networks (or management at Twitter pre-Elon)?
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  It certainly doesn't seem to so far.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago
  I'm not on Twitter. And the jury is still out on BlueSky. I'm happy to abandon BlueSky though as soon as it is revealed to be a shitsocket.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  Pre-Elon moderation was (somewhat) sensible. Every online space needs a janitorial crew to keep it from turning into a wasteland (look at 4chan /b/, and even b isn't completely unmoderated). But it didn't take actions at the emotional whims of a megalomaniac ruler.
  - fastball 2y ago
    It took actions based on the emotional / political whims of various random people though, right? Maybe not from a single megalomaniacal ruler, but that seems like a distinction without a difference.
  - meowface 2y ago
    The funny thing is that if you filter by the most active posters, I believe Twitter now very possibly (I'd even say likely) has a higher ratio of far-right posters than 4chan /b/ currently does.
    - fastball 2y ago
      Being far-right is not what made /b/ a wasteland, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
jl6 2y ago
“These sites are all as bad as each other” remains a very workable hypothesis.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  Also a very lazy approach.
4bpp 2y ago
Before the other side took hold of a major platform and started doing it to their ends, "freedom of speech is not freedom of reach", "you don't have the right to a megaphone" etc. were maxims that were regularly fielded by pundits in defense of shadowbanning and any thumbprints being discovered on the algorithmic scale (though they were never so confident in it as to make the manipulation explicit upfront before it was revealed). The "my free speech is being taken away; they are just being moderated for the common good" conjugation is something that is in fact shared between both camps. The only stable solution going forward may in fact be the pillarisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarisation) that we are already seeing emerge, which will leave both sides in a state of perpetual discontent about having no means to force their message upon unwilling recipients on the other but at least let the like-minded interact with each other consensually.
- meowkit 2y ago
  Great wiki link thanks for sharing. Also commenting to reiterate that if one spends just a little time (with an open mind) in any of the camps (X/Mastodon/Bluesky, whatever) its just so obvious that while the messages differ, the behaviors are exactly the same. In most contexts we prefer consensus - its just more energy efficient! Your brain is going to expend more energy critically listening and rewiring thoughts when new evidence is presented. Its hard even for the best of us. Pillarisation from a modeling perspective is interesting. I wonder if that could be codified at a legal level, and then anyone running for public positions of power would be required to have their own media algorithms curated by the public.
- tehjoker 2y ago
  it wont work well bc ppl need enemies to fight for engagement. without that ppl just get bored
spinach 2y ago
It's interesting how this conversation about free speech on twitter really only came up after Elon Musk took over, even though it was terrible before Musk. If you had opinions on certain spicy topics that went against the American Democrat left you would be suspended until you removed the post or banned. There was even the "Twitter Files" which documented some of this. It actually seems more open to me now, only that people who got used to being able to ban people they didn't like so they left. Yes, Musk does things are suspicious, but overall I've found the experience better, as someone who holds moderate views.

Tarsul 2y ago

I stil don't understand why none of these sites counts downvotes for their algorithm. Look at HN which does; the best comments are at the top which means that the user sees the more interesting posts first. And troll posts would never rise to the top. There's a lot of tinkering that could provide which is the best up/downvotes-algorithm but imo it simply does not work without downvoting. E.g. Tiktok allows a lot of options to downrank things that you do not like, meaning the user who curates his own feed gets a stream of posts that are more aligned with what he wants than anywhere else. And that's why TikTok won.

luma 2y ago
Social media orgs discovered a while back that what they want is "engagement", not "good content". Enraging content is as good as "good" content in terms of clicks, and downvotes would bury that enraging content. Making you mad is as good as making you feel any other thing in terms of engagement.
- Tarsul 2y ago
  yeah that's the story that I read a lot. But it doesn't make sense. E.g. I don't use Twitter because it's just a shitshow (e.g. even before Musk took over). Of course the algorithm from Twitter doesn't see it like that because it never analyzed me. It only analyzes those who are there not those who are not there. Thus, there's a hole in their algorithm. Or in other words: It's a short-termin optimizing algo (for those who are already there), not a long-term optimizer (long-term user growth).
biddit 2y ago
To my understanding, removing downvoting removes a vector of abuse. ie: "downvote brigades" on Reddit While Twitter doesn't have downvoting, it is still dealing with "report brigades" - various interest groups will organize via Telegram (or similar) to mass-report tweets they don't like. I wonder if you could strike a balance by incorporating downvotes as a visual metric, but not using it to rank content, thus allowing the expression of dislike while removing the abuse vector.
saagarjha 2y ago

mogoh 2y ago

Fediverse does not have to be doom scrolling if you just follow accounts around your hobbies and interests and filter certain keywords.

thrance 2y ago

I use none of these, and generally agree that the world would be a better place if we could magically get rid of all social media. But Twitter is filled with much, much more hate and disinformation than its alternatives. I'd say it is definitely worse than the others.

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
Serious question: would you include HN under the umbrella of 'social media'? If not, why not, where is the line?
- bookofjoe 2y ago
  This is the best comment on this thread: I hope others answer your question. IMHO HN is social media, in fact the ONLY social media where I read the posts and comments, oftimes more informative and interesting than the posts. I post to X many times daily but that's all I do there, using it as a sort of commonplace book/journal. I never bother looking at my feed.
  - sureglymop 2y ago
    Do you think that a big part of that could be the financial incentive to be "popular" on Twitter? I mean, on hacker news it doesn't seem like a person gains any long term advantage from having their posts engaged with and upvoted. That is to say, the focus is on the content and not on the profiles/usernames. There is no explicit advertising and most content is posted to create interesting discussion about it. For me, the idea of twitter style micro blogging itself is a turn off. I always thought the arbitrary character limit was inherently a bad idea and "threads" are a terrible solution. Threads force one to split up a message and allow pieces of it to be taken out of context, retweeted and even quoted. Threads are a great propaganda tool because with every follow up "part", engagement decreases. People see the first part of a thread and only look at that, social behavior that can be abused when posting. Even it's main feature set is antithetical to accurately publishing information. It gets much worse when official institutions use it as their official communications channel and a login gate is in place. I actually don't even think this is malicious but moreso bad design and failure to anticipate what rhe platform could turn into when it was first conceived.

8organicbits 2y ago

I think Mastodons API-centric approach has lead to user-friendly results that feel fundamentally different. Mastodon gives me an in-order timeline of just the accounts I follow. I configured it to hide images by default, reduce animations, and to require user action to load more posts (no infinite scroll). It feels so much more tuned to my well-being versus apps that are tuned to maximize adverisement views by trapping you in doom scrolling.

schism15 2y ago

"The toxicity is coming from inside the house!" I agree. These platforms are best when the communities are smaller. The main tipping point will be when it becomes perceived (just perceived, even) as a viable option for advertising/monetization. The only real option is to just keep pushing to the next frontier...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]