| |
| ▲ | EarlKing 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which leads me to my second point: There is a cost for curation. If a given forum is filled with people I don't want to follow, and there's no easy way to sort them from the ones I do want to follow, one can easily say that the cost of curation is high, and insofar as I do not have an unlimited amount of time on my hands and that limited time is better disposed on other tasks, I'm unlikely to ever visit that forum. This is the problem that Mastodon/the Fediverse faces, and likewise Bluesky. On Twitter I can find people from just about any background I'd care to, and I already have a well-developed list of people I'm following. Bluesky and the Fediverse are filled with people who decamped from Twitter that I'd never follow in a million years, and even if there are others there I might be interested in, they're drowned out in the sea of what for me can accurately be categorized as spammers. Put simply: While the onus may be on me to set my own experience, there is a limit to how much effort I'm willing to put forward to accomplish that, and I think the same is true of others. Do not be surprised, therefore, when your particular choice of forum stalls out because a vocal demographic spams the crap out of it and turns others away in droves... because you set it up this way and it's working as designed. | | |
| ▲ | TehCorwiz 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My favorite feature of Bluesky so far are the Lists and Starter Packs which allow you to use other people's curation options as a jumping off point. Bluesky isn't 1:1 with Twitter for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that not everyone is there yet. But the ease of finding your niche is one of the better parts of it to me. EDIT: Oh, and the simplicity of their blocklists is absolutely worth looking into. There are a few accounts who have automated scammer/spam blocklists you can subscribe to. | | |
| ▲ | EarlKing 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm sure there are. I'm also confident that they're politically-driven spammers who are simply banning anyone they had an argument with once... so not only are their lists useless to me for finding people to filter, they're equally useless for finding people to follow. Now that might not be the case, but since that's how such people behaved on Twitter when they shared blocklists I'd invariably have to go through those lists to see who was on them and try to divine the underlying criteria used for adding people to the list to know if it's worth anything... and, again, that's time and effort I'm not interested in spending when I've got better things to do. | |
| ▲ | josephcsible 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | IMO, those features are actually negatives because they're so good at creating filter bubbles relative to how good they are for anything else. | | |
| ▲ | verdverm 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | People are block listing offensive people, trolls, and bots. I don't really see these accounts as adding to a diverse and vibrant discussion. There is a lot less "dunking" on Bluesky too. The moderation and interaction tools at the individual level are really great |
|
| |
| ▲ | verdverm 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I already have a well-developed list of people I'm following Network effect plays a role here. You can see certain groups, like economists, all moving over. They all follow each other and congregate in the same place. News orgs are reporting greater click through and conversion with fewer followers. I'm pretty sure Bluesky is here to stay now that a critical mass has been reached. > because you set it up this way and it's working as designed Bluesky/ATProto gives us the tools to sculpt the experience we want. No longer are we forced into a one size fits all algorithm or platform. It really seems like you are criticizing something you don't understand |
|
|
