3 ms·

>Got a link? You can probably find it if so inclined, he appears in my feed whenever these conversations come up. I have no interest in "proving it". >My expe

>Got a link? You can probably find it if so inclined, he appears in my feed whenever these conversations come up. I have no interest in "proving it". >My experience is that it's a quiet place, in the sense that a lot of people are talking but there are way fewer raised voices than there are over on Twitter, where people get monetarily rewarded for making viral content. Both are the same format: it's a post and a stream of replies. Both are the same "volume". Both provide monetary value for viral content, though Twitter is much more explicit in that sense.

afavour 2y ago
> I have no interest in "proving it". Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. It’s notable in your post and replies to it we’ve got multiple instance of folks saying “this totally reasonable thing happened on Bluesky and people went crazy” while providing zero contextual links. Very possible we have quite different definitions of “totally reasonable” and “crazy” here. > Both provide monetary value for viral content, though Twitter is much more explicit in that sense. Come on. Twitter literally pays our users based on the viewing figures of their tweets. Bluesky has absolutely nothing comparable. The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  >Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. I don't care if you're skeptical, I'm not going to placate sealions. Go use Bluesky. My experience there is it's just as political. Let's revisit in a year. >The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change. "...while providing zero contextual links."
  - subsection1h 2y ago
    > I'm not going to placate sealions. It's called citing sources. You've posted 2,087 times and only 56 of those posts include "http"[1], which is a measly 2.7%. In comparison, I've posted 556 times and 205 of my posts include "http", which is 36.9%. The problem isn't sealioning; it's that you're either lazy or you just make things up. And given that you're not too lazy to reply to a request for a source without actually providing a source, it's reasonable to assume you might be making shit up. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=author%3Aitsoktocry+http https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=autho...
    - llm_nerd 2y ago
      Putting random links in your comments is of limited value, and it shouldn't add authority to your claims. It's actually too common on HN for people to make things up and then put some sort of citation that actually doesn't support what they are claiming whatsoever, knowing that 99.9% of users just don't care that much. The fact that it actually works on some people is hugely unfortunate. However while I'm not the other guy, how about [1] and [2]. I desperately hope that this ups my links to post ratio! The whole "block list" thing on bsky has been a massive torch mob/brigading tactic, and it's boorish. [1] https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ [2] https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w
  - afavour 2y ago
    > "...while providing zero contextual links." I can't provide a contextual link for a subjective judgement about the quality of conversation on Twitter. You can provide a contextual link for the guy on Twitter who posts about AI and has been reposting his Bluesky interactions on Twitter. All I'm hearing from your contributions to this thread is "I'm interested in saying things, I'm not interested in listening to responses". Which makes for a pretty poor level of discussion that's beneath HN.
LiquidSky 2y ago
>I have no interest in "proving it". You should, you made the claim.

afavour 2y ago

> I have no interest in "proving it". Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. It’s notable in your post and replies to it we’ve got multiple instance of folks saying “this totally reasonable thing happened on Bluesky and people went crazy” while providing zero contextual links. Very possible we have quite different definitions of “totally reasonable” and “crazy” here. > Both provide monetary value for viral content, though Twitter is much more explicit in that sense. Come on. Twitter literally pays our users based on the viewing figures of their tweets. Bluesky has absolutely nothing comparable. The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change.

itsoktocry 2y ago
>Then you should not be surprised when people are skeptical. I don't care if you're skeptical, I'm not going to placate sealions. Go use Bluesky. My experience there is it's just as political. Let's revisit in a year. >The quality of conversation on Twitter made a notable dip as soon as they made their change. "...while providing zero contextual links."
- subsection1h 2y ago
  > I'm not going to placate sealions. It's called citing sources. You've posted 2,087 times and only 56 of those posts include "http"[1], which is a measly 2.7%. In comparison, I've posted 556 times and 205 of my posts include "http", which is 36.9%. The problem isn't sealioning; it's that you're either lazy or you just make things up. And given that you're not too lazy to reply to a request for a source without actually providing a source, it's reasonable to assume you might be making shit up. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=author%3Aitsoktocry+http https://hn.algolia.com/?prefix=true&type=comment&query=autho...
  - llm_nerd 2y ago
    Putting random links in your comments is of limited value, and it shouldn't add authority to your claims. It's actually too common on HN for people to make things up and then put some sort of citation that actually doesn't support what they are claiming whatsoever, knowing that 99.9% of users just don't care that much. The fact that it actually works on some people is hugely unfortunate. However while I'm not the other guy, how about [1] and [2]. I desperately hope that this ups my links to post ratio! The whole "block list" thing on bsky has been a massive torch mob/brigading tactic, and it's boorish. [1] https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ https://eugeneyan.com/writing/anti/ [2] https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w https://bsky.app/profile/eugeneyan.com/post/3lcykteugys2w
- afavour 2y ago
  > "...while providing zero contextual links." I can't provide a contextual link for a subjective judgement about the quality of conversation on Twitter. You can provide a contextual link for the guy on Twitter who posts about AI and has been reposting his Bluesky interactions on Twitter. All I'm hearing from your contributions to this thread is "I'm interested in saying things, I'm not interested in listening to responses". Which makes for a pretty poor level of discussion that's beneath HN.

LiquidSky 2y ago

>I have no interest in "proving it". You should, you made the claim.