exmp's avatar
exmp 6 months ago
Bluesky is currently an excellent platform for the scientific/academic communities—but it is horrible for most other uses. I recall seeing several influential voices help drive the migration to Bluesky when MElon began altering X’s recommendation algorithm, effectively shadowbanning many science-related accounts (those with large followings whose posts were suddenly hidden from their followers). Interestingly, Bluesky offers no formal guarantees that similar practices won’t happen there. However, its social and political environment is perceived as more tolerant—or at least less self-destructive—than Xitter, making it feel like a relatively safe space. Nostr missed the boat. It’s now unlikely to attract academic/scientific voices unless something dramatic happens. That’s a missed opportunity, as this is one of the most valuable communities a social platform can have. I also suspect that they would not move to Nostr.
↑ Parent

Replies (1)

exmp's avatar
exmp 6 months ago
I also think Bluesky is quite intolerant, but calling it Marxist is laughable - if anything, it's (socially) more like a Dem-leaning clone of X. That said, science/academia are special domains. These are pros who communicate on technical topics and are generally uninterested in engaging bots/trolls. As a result, more controlled environments (like Bluesky or LinkedIn) are naturally more appealing. Personally, I followed the so-called "EnergyTwitter" for several years. It was (for myself) a remarkable phenomenon: a large community of engineers, scientists, and technicians sharing insights and ideas about energy, and I learned a lot from that. Unfortunately, it has largely dissipated now. Roughly half of that community has moved to Mastodon.energy, and the other half to Bsky. The problem with X isn’t outright suppression, but rather manipulation of the recommender system, which is subtler. That’s another reason why having control over the client-side feed, as in Nostr, is so desirable.
↑