I generallu find it easier to get engagement in bluesky and fedi than x/twitter. I guess in X if you're not paying for the bluecheck you're soft shadow banned.
shortercode · 2h ago
I used to be a big fan of Twitter, I followed a number of excellent programmers who regularly posted. But then they messed with the algorithm so I couldn’t actually see what the people I was interested in were posting. I just got generic meme style posts. Whatever good content that still reached me gradually decreased as people realised it wasn’t worth posting anymore. So I left and haven’t found any suitable replacement tbh.
So yeah entirely unsurprised that people aren’t engaging with science on X
vannevar · 5h ago
Bots and trolls not particularly interested in science, study finds.
Rakshith · 1h ago
yeah and I'm supposed to believe that written by the Guardian
raxxorraxor · 9h ago
That probably depends on the field and the most impactful research rarely has any presence on either.
X might be a cesspit, but I would be more concerned about self-reinforcing "studies" being developed with and on Bluesky.
__rito__ · 6h ago
X algorithm is the most tunable I have come across.
I can mute all words I don't like to see, and hit a bunch of "Not Relevant"s once a month or so, and my X feed has only relevant content. And it has very high density.
I like the vibes of Fedi, but there is not enough density.
And Bluesky is just Old Twitter 2.0 without the density of technical stuff. That's the default feeling.
In this note, Facebook algo perform the worst. No matter how much signal I send to the algorithm by watching videos for longer, liking, commenting on stuff of my liking, hitting "Not interested" a lot, it still shows me the lowest commonly understandable dumb thing again and again.
YouTube algo is also very trainable and enjoyable.
__rito__ · 6h ago
X algorithm is the most tunable I have come across.
I can mute all words I don't like to see, and hit a bunch of "Not Relevant" once a month or so, and my X feed has only relevant content. And it has very high density.
I like the vibes of Fedi, but not enough density.
And Bluesky is just Old Twitter 2.0 without the density of technical stuff. That's the default feeling.
lazzlazzlazz · 4h ago
I haven't found this to be the case. I check both regularly and much of the "science" that has engagement on Bluesky is thinly-veiled political slop earning engagement as a form of tacit "resistance". It's paper thin (and even the comments here on HN demonstrate a bit of this effect).
X downranks links in general, unfortunately, so unless the research is reformatted for X (rare) it won't get much engagement.
becausereligi · 8h ago
Maybe it's that people have to say "on X"?
I don't like saying "on X".
becausereligi · 8h ago
Are they "X tweets"? Really, who thought that through.
When was masto-chump banned for so masto-tooting?
ChrisArchitect · 5h ago
Related:
Bluesky now platform of choice for science community
Are we still hoping that "x will die"? It's been 3 years folks.
arghandugh · 5h ago
This is because Twitter is an explicitly anti-science rightwing hate project designed to cater to narcissists and the morally degenerate. (The key clue is that it is run by a morally degenerate narcissist)
doublebind · 3h ago
Twitter/X is what one makes of it. The algorithm is easy to tune to your personal interests. And with Grok available on every post, your options to go deeper on topics are almost infinite. I tried to use Bluesky and it was insufferable (I don't follow politics BTW).
If you don't want Twitter/X because the owner makes you sick, I respect that but it's a different topic.
So yeah entirely unsurprised that people aren’t engaging with science on X
X might be a cesspit, but I would be more concerned about self-reinforcing "studies" being developed with and on Bluesky.
I can mute all words I don't like to see, and hit a bunch of "Not Relevant"s once a month or so, and my X feed has only relevant content. And it has very high density.
I like the vibes of Fedi, but there is not enough density.
And Bluesky is just Old Twitter 2.0 without the density of technical stuff. That's the default feeling.
In this note, Facebook algo perform the worst. No matter how much signal I send to the algorithm by watching videos for longer, liking, commenting on stuff of my liking, hitting "Not interested" a lot, it still shows me the lowest commonly understandable dumb thing again and again.
YouTube algo is also very trainable and enjoyable.
I can mute all words I don't like to see, and hit a bunch of "Not Relevant" once a month or so, and my X feed has only relevant content. And it has very high density.
I like the vibes of Fedi, but not enough density.
And Bluesky is just Old Twitter 2.0 without the density of technical stuff. That's the default feeling.
X downranks links in general, unfortunately, so unless the research is reformatted for X (rare) it won't get much engagement.
I don't like saying "on X".
When was masto-chump banned for so masto-tooting?
Bluesky now platform of choice for science community
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45039397
Scientists No Longer Find X Professionally Useful, and Have Switched to Bluesky
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978815
If you don't want Twitter/X because the owner makes you sick, I respect that but it's a different topic.