The reality is that microblogging, whether it be on X or bluesky or mastadon or even facebook posts, will ALWAYS be lower signal, lower value than real, curated or effort filled content.

I like John Green a lot, including his vlogs that are just him speaking about stuff he doesn't know for half an hour, but I still do not go read what he posts on Bluesky, because it's as low quality, low signal, low intent, and low effort as comments here on HN.

It's just not useful. It's not a good use of my time to read random tweets from people.

When I first got a twitter account in like 2010, I very very instantly recognized it was not for me. If something is important, someone will take the effort to make an actual piece of real content about it, like a blog or video or essay or book. Hell, even a thorough reddit post is better than microblogging.

If it's not worth going through that effort to get the message out to people, why should I consider that a valuable message?

It's emblematic of the past 20 years of social development in my opinion. If the only thing stopping you from getting the word about something super duper important is that writing a page essay is too hard, nobody really needs to care about that, because writing an essay is so easy we make children do it

It's all noise. The signal doesn't go on twitter, it goes on real platforms where you might make money from good signal, or like, a freaking scientific paper, or the front page of a news org.

▲

HeinzStuckeIt 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Earlier, I would have agreed that microblogging pales next to long-form blogging. But then so much long-form blogging moved to Substack that has an overall culture as full of pathologies as microblogging: post regularly even if you don't have anything new to say, hustle a brand that can be monetized, accept a comments section with a broken UI full of people shamelessly trying to hustle their own brand. People doing long-form video content will often speak openly about how they feel forced to change their content in order to avoid being punished by the YouTube algorithm.

Personally, I'm pessimistic that there are many remaining sources of substantial discourse and discussion at all. I just pirate a lot more university-press books from Anna's Archive.

▲

the__alchemist 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I noticed the same thing with Angela Collier. I love her videos, but her Bluesky posts have less subtlety than I would expect from someone of her intelligence and scientific training.

▲

mrguyorama 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's because it's a microblogging platform.

That's just what it's meant for, low effort swipes, shitposting, retweets out of context etc.

It is notable that in order to actually accomplish their "We want a platform where a celebrity says something and you instantly get that something", Twitter had to do a lot of work and pain curating who "celebrities" are. The alternative is everyone getting a waterfall of shit, because the vast majority of people do not have PR agencies between them and their tweet button, and do not have anything important or meaningful to say that is better said fast and short than long and naunced. The entire point of microblogging is to eschew nuance.

That's absurd full stop.

Why would you ever want to know whatever low effort comment sparked thanksgiving dinner arguments at other people's thanksgivings?

> I love her videos, but her Bluesky posts have less subtlety than I would expect from someone of her intelligence and scientific training.

Please tell me which of "Water fluoridation is a well understood treatment, and people who are telling you it's bad for you are just lying", "<Knitting trivia>" or "Target is doing poorly as a business right now" or "ICE doing gestapo things" is "unsubtle", or why any of that should be "subtle", which is a strange choice of word.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]