> Why is Bluesky an echo chamber but X, Rumble, Gab, Gettr are not? I bet there's huge vile "damn leftists" commentary there, even though we don't know who shot Kirk or why. Why isn't that an echo chamber?

I have not even heard of some of those. So I am not saying that they aren’t echo chambers either. But given the reputation for civil discourse that blue sky has, I was surprised to see a lot of comments that were saying disgusting things in thinly coded ways.

Can you elucidate what you're saying? Keep in mind, I live in a state where Republican US Senators Dave McCormick and his predecessor Pat Tooney are famous for ignoring their constituents' calls and generally not making themselves available. I would love to interact with them, but they won't allow it. I imagine PA is not unique in this regard...

Look at HN - if you express something even a taste conservative, you will absolutely be downvoted.

Which is ultimately just silencing the messenger; the very behavior that backfires... sometimes figuratively, yesterday literally. You'd think free speech advocates would be smarter than to ever use the downvote button on a legitimate opinion, seems like a contradiction.

Edit, for the reply: > "Post a far left soundbite opinion like 'all consumption is unethical under capitalism' and you will get downvoted just as handily as 'I wasn't hired because I'm white'"

This is actually a bad example, because we just got Ames vs Ohio, eliminating the higher burden of proof that white individuals needed to present when claiming discrimination 9-0. As such, there is a possibility that complaint was factual and is going to be proven soon, where the other is purely ideological.

Edit 2: Nice undocumented edit to make it a "trans employee" instead. You've just openly admitted you would've downvoted a legitimate opinion by claiming it was illegitimate, then edited your comment afterwards to fix the weakness, proving my original point.

You are misinterpreting the statistics.

Having more people talk than follow is good thing and probably consistent across social media.

That's just saying the average person posts for 2 days and follows for 1. Which seems very typical if not heavy on the following.

Pointing at more people speaking than sheeping and calling that an ominous statistic seems off, don't you think?

There was an election combined with it being new - now it's trending to be the next Clubhouse. Remember Clubhouse?

No, it's down posts year over year, which I wouldn't have believed was possible if it hadn't happened. It's got half as much post traffic as its peak(s), which were on exactly the days that Trump was elected and inaugurated.

It's basically what Truth Social would be if it didn't even have Trump.

-----

edit: it's not the fault of the technology, it's the fault of the awful company. They represent people strongly aligned with the Democratic Party, but with no power in the Democratic Party, and their philosophy has been stated over and over again: if you don't agree with whatever we believe today, we don't even want your support, or want you here, or want you to be employed. A lot of conservatives would add "they also don't want us to be alive."

The worst part is that they're all upper-middle class, and when as the Gini coefficient goes up with the right-wingers they're locking into power by being so repulsive, they'll just get wealthier and wealthier and more self-righteous.

I've been suspecting for years that there's a lot of botted support for the dumbest most out of touch liberals that is paid for by conservatives. I don't meet people like this in real life, and I am very left-wing. The liberals I meet are generally humble and thoughtful (if in love with their television sets.)

It's the subtitle: "Many liberals who had fled X for Bluesky seem to be embracing the Elon Musk-owned platform once more. Why?"

Unless you're interpreting fled as being one-way, while embracing is somehow two-way.