Tabletop creators leave X for Bluesky in droves

[TheAlkaizer]

I didn't have any major issues with Twitter. But conceptually what Bluesky offers is more interesting. From my understanding, it doesn't have one central algorithm that pushes content on its users. All the content being generated by users is one long stream and through customizable features like following people, feeds, lists, etc, you can curate what content you see.

The fact that it's model is open-source and that your data can be hosted elsewhere than on their server are also great steps. I just want to encourage that.

I also find it a little bit more responsive.

I was able to find almost everyone I followed on Twitter and follow them on Bluesky.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, really, blocking jerks on social media is the way to go. Your social media is not the only place you should go for information anyway. You can always take a bit of time to go elsewhere to get good information, including about opposing viewpoints.

We do not need to settle for accepting abuse.

Frankly, taking anyone's word for it on social media, unless they're literally the primary source on the topic, is an error. Its like Wikipedia; use it as a leaping off point to find a genuine authoritative source and double check it. I learned that one when researching medical topics many years ago.

 

[Zardnaar]

Frankly, taking anyone's word for it on social media, unless they're literally the primary source on the topic, is an error. Its like Wikipedia; use it as a leaping off point to find a genuine authoritative source and double check it. I learned that one when researching medical topics many years ago.

Yup. If you're American though even the reliable media is kinda poor compared to foreign media or old USA media. Compare a news broadcast from the 60s to now. Very different (old stuff is boring comparatively)

Check the owners and it's all talking heads opinion based. It's also filtered and edited. Lots of opinions with experts that are knowledgeable but still opinion. It's really bad. If you're used to it you probably won't even notice. Somewhat reliable ones are filtering and spinning it. Unreliable BS.

Where social media can ve good for news is breaking events. It's often an hour or three ahead of the networks. Just don't take it as absolute.

This weekend I noticed some expert is saying a certain regime will fall in days, online you're seeing a city has already fallen or in the process of doing so. End of the week becomes end of the day becomes happening now.

Avoid opinion based youtubers although some have interesting footage of events. One uses satellite photos of tank storage yards being depleted so you can essentially draw your own conclusions from that depleti9n.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yup. If you're American though even the reliable media is kinda poor compared to foreign media or old USA media. Compare a news broadcast from the 60s to now. Very different (old stuff is boring comparatively)

If you do a comparison to Reuters and AP, you can usually be fairly confident that the information is a reliable as anyone can provide at that point in time. But of course, a lot of this stuff isn't even about current events, but about things that should be relatively established knowledge once you search for primary sources.

Check the owners and it's all talking heads opinion based. It's also filtered and edited. Lots of opinions with experts that are knowledgeable but still opinion. It's really bad. If you're used to it you probably won't even notice.

Where social media can ve good for news is breaking events. It's often an hour or three ahead of the networks. Just don't tale it as absolute.

This weekend I noticed some expert is saying a certain regime will fall in days, online you're seeing a city has already fallen or in the process of doing so. End if tne week becomes end of the day becomes happening now.

Ironically, that's a consequence of news, while wanting to be first out the gate, also not wanting to jump the gun. Randos on social media don't have the same constraints.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you do a comparison to Reuters and AP, you can usually be fairly confident that the information is a reliable as anyone can provide at that point in time. But of course, a lot of this stuff isn't even about current events, but about things that should be relatively established knowledge once you search for primary sources.



Ironically, that's a consequence of news, while wanting to be first out the gate, also not wanting to jump the gun. Randos on social media don't have the same constraints.

Reuters abd AP are fairly good about best it gets outside reliable livestream or whatever.

All the American stuff is filtered though so there's a narrative bias there as well. France 24 and DW news in youtube is OK at least tge talking headaspect is minimized. They're fine for an overview.

I've noticed some networks use unverified footage but they tell you straight up it's unverified (it's already doing the rounds on social media).

Ignore opinions but a XYZ tank in downtown ABC tends to be reliable. Cut to some talking head to explain the significance of said tank (in a few hours)..

 

[Argyle King]

Trying to hedge me in with hypotheticals? Please. This is the internet we are talking about. I am never left with a choice between two, and only two, sources of information.

...

I'm not hedging anything.

You asked a question, and I answered what I would do given a situation that you had presented.

In return, I asked what you would do given a situation that I had presented.

As previous comments had talked about approaches to information and exploring thought patterns, it's a relevant question.

It's not any type of gotcha or anything like that.

It's simply a question: Given a choice between a distasteful source with accurate information or a palatable source with faulty information, which source of information would you choose?

Personally, I would generally want the better information. I certainly do see value in a more human approach to giving/getting information. I think (for me personally) the weight I would give to each of pathos, logos, and ethos depends upon what I am learning.

If I am training for combat (or combat sports -which I have,) I find value in a harsh teacher. Sometimes, the best way to fix a hole in a technique is to feel what it's like to be hit. In such a case, I would choose the teacher with better information and actually want more harshness.

If I am exchanging information conversationally or having a philosophical discussion, being hit in the face is neither desired nor necessary.

My own (brief) anecdotal experience with pre-Elon Xwitter was that it was a high amount of harshness combined with a low amount of value. As such, I chose not to use it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

My own (brief) anecdotal experience with pre-Elon Xwitter was that it was a high amount of harshness combined with a low amount of value. As such, I chose not to use it.

It was a very large platform with a lot of communities that could, in theory, interact, but mostly didn't. The Black Twitter experience was very different than politics Twitter which was different (initially) than comics and videogames Twitter or journalism Twitter, which was different (mostly) than UK Royal Family Twitter, which was extremely distinct from porn and sex worker Twitter, etc.

So yes, there were definitely areas that were pretty unpleasant but there were also incredibly supportive and nice areas of Twitter.

Since the purchase, though, Musk has changed how it works so that his tweets show up in your notifications whether or not you follow him or stuff he is interested in, has made it impossible to block or mute him, and has changed the algorithm so that things he cares about show up on everyone's timelines now, whether or not they want it there.

As a result of these very conscious actions, he's forcibly changing the culture of Twitter as a whole to match the experience he wants everyone to have -- right wing politics Twitter, but centered on him personally.

So people who previously didn't have a toxic experience on Twitter -- and they definitely existed -- are suddenly having toxicity overrun their timeline.

I know the narrative in some quarters is that it's crying liberals running to Bluesky and other sites, but it's also plenty of normal people. (Royal Family Twitter isn't exactly a bunch of progressives and they're moving over to Bluesky as well, for instance.)

 

[Argyle King]

It was a very large platform with a lot of communities that could, in theory, interact, but mostly didn't. The Black Twitter experience was very different than politics Twitter which was different (initially) than comics and videogames Twitter or journalism Twitter, which was different (mostly) than UK Royal Family Twitter, which was extremely distinct from porn and sex worker Twitter, etc.

So yes, there were definitely areas that were pretty unpleasant but there were also incredibly supportive and nice areas of Twitter.

Since the purchase, though, Musk has changed how it works so that his tweets show up in your notifications whether or not you follow him or stuff he is interested in, has made it impossible to block or mute him, and has changed the algorithm so that things he cares about show up on everyone's timelines now, whether or not they want it there.

As a result of these very conscious actions, he's forcibly changing the culture of Twitter as a whole to match the experience he wants everyone to have -- right wing politics Twitter, but centered on him personally.

So people who previously didn't have a toxic experience on Twitter -- and they definitely existed -- are suddenly having toxicity overrun their timeline.

I know the narrative in some quarters is that it's crying liberals running to Bluesky and other sites, but it's also plenty of normal people. (Royal Family Twitter isn't exactly a bunch of progressives and they're moving over to Bluesky as well, for instance.)

I am glad that choices are available for people who want those choices to be available.

 

[Velderan]

It was a very large platform with a lot of communities that could, in theory, interact, but mostly didn't. The Black Twitter experience was very different than politics Twitter which was different (initially) than comics and videogames Twitter or journalism Twitter, which was different (mostly) than UK Royal Family Twitter, which was extremely distinct from porn and sex worker Twitter, etc.

So yes, there were definitely areas that were pretty unpleasant but there were also incredibly supportive and nice areas of Twitter.

Since the purchase, though, Musk has changed how it works so that his tweets show up in your notifications whether or not you follow him or stuff he is interested in, has made it impossible to block or mute him, and has changed the algorithm so that things he cares about show up on everyone's timelines now, whether or not they want it there.

As a result of these very conscious actions, he's forcibly changing the culture of Twitter as a whole to match the experience he wants everyone to have -- right wing politics Twitter, but centered on him personally.

So people who previously didn't have a toxic experience on Twitter -- and they definitely existed -- are suddenly having toxicity overrun their timeline.

I know the narrative in some quarters is that it's crying liberals running to Bluesky and other sites, but it's also plenty of normal people. (Royal Family Twitter isn't exactly a bunch of progressives and they're moving over to Bluesky as well, for instance.)

That basically describes my experience using Reddit. Each subreddit can potentially have it's own culture based on the material being discussed and how the mod team approaches moderation. I keep hearing people say Reddit is super toxic and I'm sure that is the case for some people; I know I wouldn't go anywhere near the Star Wars subreddit because I can imagine the conversations there without needing to read them. But overall my experience using the site hasn't been bad based on the handful of subreddits I've stuck with.

 

[Belen]

That basically describes my experience using Reddit. Each subreddit can potentially have it's own culture based on the material being discussed and how the mod team approaches moderation. I keep hearing people say Reddit is super toxic and I'm sure that is the case for some people; I know I wouldn't go anywhere near the Star Wars subreddit because I can imagine the conversations there without needing to read them. But overall my experience using the site hasn't been bad based on the handful of subreddits I've stuck with.

Anyone who tries to say that there has not been balkanization of feeds is delusional. People actively seek out echo chambers. I have seen it with friends and family. If I never see another post where someone makes a statement and then says "If you do not agree with me and this statement 100%, then unfriend me," then I will be a happier person.

Personally, I think most people generally want the same things but the main disagreements are due to how to implement them.

I do not feel the need to agree with or accept all the beliefs of my friends in order to be friends with them. I have a big problem with people wanting to force their views on me or put me through purity tests though and is one reason I never went for organized belief systems.

I just go back to not seeing the points of socials like X or Bluesky. It's cool if folks found a new space and enjoy it, but I always look at the news and it just reminds me of the horrors of high school clicks.