3 ms·

If by "nontoxic", one means a social media where people complain about the other side, then sure, I guess bluesky is on a great quest. I don't have a dog in US

If by "nontoxic", one means a social media where people complain about the other side, then sure, I guess bluesky is on a great quest. I don't have a dog in US politics fight, but from my experience on BlueSky, it has become a social network for people who disagree with the current US politics, and most of the content there is debunking/criticizing the other side. Whether you think it's nontoxic is up to you, but history has shown that creating isolated echo-chambers is generally a bad idea.

JKCalhoun 2y ago
I just turn off the politics on BlueSky by not following rabid politics-posters. Even the retro-computing enthusiast I follow can have a bad day and repost something political and I'm okay with a little bit of that. (I had to unfollow Mark Hamill though because of the politics firehose. And I generally agree with him politically ... I just don't need it on BlueSky all the time.)
pseudalopex 2y ago
I think 2 things can be true. Bluesky gives users more control to shape their feeds how they want. And many want Twitter with different politics.
matsemann 2y ago
Or maybe many of us just want a social media where we can discuss our hobby without all the polarizing hate? I was part of a cycle community on Twitter. After it became X, my feed is just full of political crap or viral content, not the content I used to see. Most sane people in my circle stopped posting, so the algorithm push other stuff. Couldn't discuss any bicycle topic without some blue check person showing up telling us how they love to run over cyclists. On bsky we've found a new home with custom feeds and stricter moderation. Blocking actually works and even detaches the discussion entirely, so idiots can't use my content to spread their hate. So portraying it as "both sites bad" is dishonest imo, as it's not just that they lean differently.
antisthenes 2y ago
> but history has shown that creating isolated echo-chambers is generally a bad idea. I think it's a great idea for the rest of us. Keeps that kind of demographic mostly self-contained in their echo-chamber, thus freeing up the rest of the internet from culture war content. At least in theory.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

I just turn off the politics on BlueSky by not following rabid politics-posters. Even the retro-computing enthusiast I follow can have a bad day and repost something political and I'm okay with a little bit of that. (I had to unfollow Mark Hamill though because of the politics firehose. And I generally agree with him politically ... I just don't need it on BlueSky all the time.)

pseudalopex 2y ago

I think 2 things can be true. Bluesky gives users more control to shape their feeds how they want. And many want Twitter with different politics.

matsemann 2y ago

Or maybe many of us just want a social media where we can discuss our hobby without all the polarizing hate? I was part of a cycle community on Twitter. After it became X, my feed is just full of political crap or viral content, not the content I used to see. Most sane people in my circle stopped posting, so the algorithm push other stuff. Couldn't discuss any bicycle topic without some blue check person showing up telling us how they love to run over cyclists. On bsky we've found a new home with custom feeds and stricter moderation. Blocking actually works and even detaches the discussion entirely, so idiots can't use my content to spread their hate. So portraying it as "both sites bad" is dishonest imo, as it's not just that they lean differently.

antisthenes 2y ago

> but history has shown that creating isolated echo-chambers is generally a bad idea. I think it's a great idea for the rest of us. Keeps that kind of demographic mostly self-contained in their echo-chamber, thus freeing up the rest of the internet from culture war content. At least in theory.