I'd love to know the breakdown in declines between bot/engagement accounts and organic posting, though that's likely impossible even with the labeling system. I couldn't tell if there's even a perceptual decline in the former because I've mass-blocked them through blocklists and labelers.
Subjectively, I have only noticed a steady increase in posting activity on Bluesky and Mastodon over the last few months, to the point where I now have a hard time keeping up with my feed.
zero-ground-445 · 1d ago
I can see it. I feel like it not taking off. Sad.
incomingpain · 1d ago
Bluesky has the same problem as Mastodon. Both of which fully understand their problem; neither of which are willing to change.
It's ultimately their choice to make. The current choice means they can never take off and they automatically let X win.
Who am I to tell them what to do?
It must be about 2 years ago when they published their community guideline rules and it's trivial to see how they have no chance of success.
TimorousBestie · 1d ago
Hmm? What’s so objectionable in the community guideline rules?
incomingpain · 23h ago
You're right, I caught myself committing a post hoc fallacy.
Just because i predicted the guidelines would be damaging to their platform and now they are declining that these arent necessarily linked.
Using OP website, I can see all top accounts seem to be democrats. No republicans or conservatives?
When there is such an imbalance, the platform is behind it. If you actively ban entire ideological groups on a social platform, you're never going to be successful. What rule are these entire ideological groups violating?
On various speedruns by conservatives that ive watched, they got banned for 'being disrespectful' or 'abuse' obviously a ban speedrun will typically run into the vague rules the most.
Lets look at the rule.
Treat others with respect. For example, no:
Harassment or abuse directed at a specific person or group,
"MAGA cultists" or "hateful cockroaches" is abusive towards a group. I would expect this post to violate bluesky rules. Yet not only allowed, well received with 7.4k likes.
If a republican went on bluesky and called democrats cultists and cockroaches. How fast would they be banned?
archagon · 20h ago
Doubt it. In my Bluesky and Mastodon feeds, there are plenty of intelligent and interesting people who will never return to Twitter under any circumstance. So I don't know if Twitter will ultimately "win" in terms of overall numbers, but the signal I care about simply won't be there. I suspect it will turn into a zombie social network like Facebook: full of trolls, bots, and annoying people trying to go viral.
fsflover · 1d ago
> community guideline rules
There's no such thing in Mastodon. Each server can choose their own rules.
incomingpain · 1d ago
>There's no such thing in Mastodon. Each server can choose their own rules.
Gab is a mastodon fork that is isolated from mastodon. What community guidelines did Gab violate?
fsflover · 1d ago
Each server decides on their own about interacting with other servers. Gab wasn't isolated by all servers, just those who prefer certain rules. You can create a server with your own rules.
TimorousBestie · 1d ago
What’s with all this beating around the bush? What “certain rules”? What community guideline did Bluesky implement to ensure they’d never “take off”?
fsflover · 1d ago
Which beating? There's no single set of rules in Mastodon and it can't exist, just like with emails. Large servers (like Gmail) can make their rules and ban everyone who disagrees, but you can conclude that "email has unfair rules" from that.
I don't really care about the centralized Bluesky.
TimorousBestie · 1d ago
> Gab wasn't isolated by all servers, just those who prefer certain rules.
That’s the sentence I’m referencing. I understand how Mastodon works theoretically, but I have no idea why Gab was partially excluded. I haven’t been on Mastodon in years.
This apparently plays into why OP thinks Bluesky is a dead end, so.
I see. So Bluesky is going to fail because people can’t say slurs on it.
Would’ve been a lot easier if OP had just opened with that.
oldpersonintx2 · 1d ago
joining bsky was just a protest vote, not a legit desire to engage
threads felt the same, its also dead
TimorousBestie · 1d ago
This is the reality of a platform that is hostile to corporations (even if it is hostile for good reasons). As far as I could tell, the company running Bluesky has limited ideas about monetization. In part, because they’re well aware their user base is hostile to X-style monetization (which, sure, probably made money, but at what cost?)
Hopefully some other ATProto implementor will come along with a better idea.
It is interesting to me that e.g. Adobe left Bluesky after relatively minor pushback, but they stay on X despite the much larger problems associated with that platform.
palata · 1d ago
But doesn't it mean that it's better for users? Why don't user go there? Do they like being abused by corporations?
Genuinely interested. I don't get why people would use X and not Bluesky.
TimorousBestie · 1d ago
I mostly interact with scholars on Bluesky, and my feeling is that the ones refusing to leave X don’t understand that a lot of the “engagement” (follows, views, likes) they see there is illusory (bots, spam accounts, misreporting of statistics, etc.)
“I had 10k followers on X but only 2k on Bluesky” is the kind of refrain I hear a lot. Even if they get more “organic” engagement in replies from human beings.
Also, there are no “private” accounts or “private” DMs on Bluesky. (That this only exists on X in name only does not phase them.)
dragonwriter · 1d ago
Social media has extremely high network externalities. People who are information consumers want to go where the people who are active posters are, and people who are active posters want to go where the audience is.
The actual qualities of the product are almost irrelevant if you have the current user base; it takes very a lot to get even a sizable minority of people to actively use social media that doesn't have that kind of established dominance in the face of social media that does, and it has to be sustained.
That's why most new successful social media sites (even though over time they may converge on feature sets) become successful by dominating some particular new media or interaction style not supported well on existing social media—it effectively lets them operate as if there was no dominant competitor, as an add-on rather than replacement for existing dominant social media. But Bluesky doesn't have that.
It's ultimately their choice to make. The current choice means they can never take off and they automatically let X win.
Who am I to tell them what to do?
It must be about 2 years ago when they published their community guideline rules and it's trivial to see how they have no chance of success.
Just because i predicted the guidelines would be damaging to their platform and now they are declining that these arent necessarily linked.
Using OP website, I can see all top accounts seem to be democrats. No republicans or conservatives?
When there is such an imbalance, the platform is behind it. If you actively ban entire ideological groups on a social platform, you're never going to be successful. What rule are these entire ideological groups violating?
On various speedruns by conservatives that ive watched, they got banned for 'being disrespectful' or 'abuse' obviously a ban speedrun will typically run into the vague rules the most.
Lets look at the rule.
Treat others with respect. For example, no: Harassment or abuse directed at a specific person or group,
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:7qqkq2zdwq4j5jingukgtuky/po...
"MAGA cultists" or "hateful cockroaches" is abusive towards a group. I would expect this post to violate bluesky rules. Yet not only allowed, well received with 7.4k likes.
If a republican went on bluesky and called democrats cultists and cockroaches. How fast would they be banned?
There's no such thing in Mastodon. Each server can choose their own rules.
Gab is a mastodon fork that is isolated from mastodon. What community guidelines did Gab violate?
I don't really care about the centralized Bluesky.
That’s the sentence I’m referencing. I understand how Mastodon works theoretically, but I have no idea why Gab was partially excluded. I haven’t been on Mastodon in years.
This apparently plays into why OP thinks Bluesky is a dead end, so.
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/07/statement-on-gabs-fork...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19847481
Would’ve been a lot easier if OP had just opened with that.
threads felt the same, its also dead
Hopefully some other ATProto implementor will come along with a better idea.
It is interesting to me that e.g. Adobe left Bluesky after relatively minor pushback, but they stay on X despite the much larger problems associated with that platform.
Genuinely interested. I don't get why people would use X and not Bluesky.
“I had 10k followers on X but only 2k on Bluesky” is the kind of refrain I hear a lot. Even if they get more “organic” engagement in replies from human beings.
Also, there are no “private” accounts or “private” DMs on Bluesky. (That this only exists on X in name only does not phase them.)
The actual qualities of the product are almost irrelevant if you have the current user base; it takes very a lot to get even a sizable minority of people to actively use social media that doesn't have that kind of established dominance in the face of social media that does, and it has to be sustained.
That's why most new successful social media sites (even though over time they may converge on feature sets) become successful by dominating some particular new media or interaction style not supported well on existing social media—it effectively lets them operate as if there was no dominant competitor, as an add-on rather than replacement for existing dominant social media. But Bluesky doesn't have that.