Hacker News Reader

Comment by EcommerceFlow | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> Or maybe someone can explain why a researcher would leave a platform with 100x the reach

Not everyone is out after "widest reach", some people just want to have reasonable discussions about things, without overly emotional reactions. Those people have been migrating over to Bluesky since you can actually have dialogues and discussions there without it derailing instantly.

I think the Fediverse took this role for a lot of groups, since it's not trying to show everything to everyone by default, but trying to attract accounts with similar interests to the same servers, and then have some limited cross-server interaction.

Also, it’s the job of a PhD student to plan 5 years out, and professors should look even further into the future.

It is a matter of quality over quantity.

Disabling or limiting comments does not improve the quality of the comments.

> Or maybe someone can explain why a researcher would leave a platform with 100x the reach, when they can just disable or limit comments.

Platforms are what we make them.

Possubly Nature figured out that by posting content on Twitter they are helping promote a platform that is perhaps hostile to their purpose. Or maybe they would have a wider reach, but to a completely wrong audience.

Or maybe they just figured out Twitter is ass, and decided to post on a better platform, by whatever measurement of "better" they have.

By reducing everything to "ideologically captured", you are saying a lot more about yourself than about Nature.

I can't say I'm posting a lot of links, but there's a pretty wide consensus from people who post on both that the Twitter view volume doesn't necessarily translate to a higher engagement volume, even if they have many times fewer followers on bluesky

Idk, I just don’t want to see obvious US realpolitiks 24/7 and random outrages around it. Gets a bit tiring, and I have some grass to touch.

Many large accounts report higher engagement on Bluesky despite having much higher follower counts on X. The effect is especially profound when you’re linking to an external site. X absolutely buries external links.

> Many large accounts report higher engagement on Bluesky despite having much higher follower counts on X.

What do you mean "despite higher follower counts"? Accounts with more followers are expected to have less engagement compared to accounts with less followers.

I mean the user will do the same post on both X and bluesky and find that they get more clicks, retweets, likes, and replies on Bluesky despite having far more followers on X.

Yeah, and my point is that something like that happens on every social network. The more followers you have, the less total engagement (%) you get, usually. There are always outliers of course.

What reach? Reaching tousands of bots?

From the article: “Bluesky is much better for science. There is much less toxicity, misinformation, and distractions,” wrote one respondent. “My feed is almost entirely scientists and I actually get updates on research that is relevant and timely,” wrote another

Because the platform with 100x the reach has been "ideologically captured" by one person.

>Or maybe someone can explain why a researcher would leave a platform with 100x the reach

Nazis. That's why I left.

The US has turned toward fascism and Musk is a big part of that. He has endeared himself to the Trump administration, which has promised to institute policies of nationalism, discrimination, and authoritarianism. Twitter will likely be used as a tool of propaganda and disinformation, if it's not already. Meta is equally compromised in my view.

Easy or hard, I have no interest in using the platforms of boot-licking oligarchs. Even if they have 100x reach. (I'm not a researcher).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com