What Is Blueskyism?(natesilver.net)
natesilver.net
What Is Blueskyism?
https://www.natesilver.net/p/what-is-blueskyism
24 comments
I don’t know, this seems like something to be taken with a grain of salt. Throughout, the post is dripping with personal contempt for the people he’s talking about. It just seems like he’s taking his personal experience with the “blueskyists” pre Bluesky and turning it into something important enough to coin this term “Blueskyism”, without ever making the case that that’s true.
It’s less, “this is an important thing to consider in contemporary, online political discourse”, and more, “I have personal experience with these sorts of people, and let me tell you, they annoy the living piss out of me.” And I have no trouble believing him.
It’s less, “this is an important thing to consider in contemporary, online political discourse”, and more, “I have personal experience with these sorts of people, and let me tell you, they annoy the living piss out of me.” And I have no trouble believing him.
I believe that a substantial challenge with modern pundit discourse is that every pundit with any meaningful reach can now go online and see a whole bunch of people calling them big dumb idiots on any given day. Even if the vast majority of discourse is fine it feels absolutely horrible to open up twitter or bluesky or whatever and have a whole bunch of DMs calling you an asshole.
I think this drives people like Nate Silver to overreact and draw big conclusions about platforms and political ideologies and put out content like this.
Some people are annoying on social media. If the platform structurally focuses you on a group of annoying people it'll look like everybody on that platform is annoying. But I'd hope that somebody who got famous for data analysis could do a better job with this. The bluesky firehose is there. AI tools make mass sentiment analysis easier to perform than ever. We could have a real analysis of "blueskyism" but instead we get a bunch of gripes from a person who sees a tiny portion of the website yell at him every time he opens the site.
I think this drives people like Nate Silver to overreact and draw big conclusions about platforms and political ideologies and put out content like this.
Some people are annoying on social media. If the platform structurally focuses you on a group of annoying people it'll look like everybody on that platform is annoying. But I'd hope that somebody who got famous for data analysis could do a better job with this. The bluesky firehose is there. AI tools make mass sentiment analysis easier to perform than ever. We could have a real analysis of "blueskyism" but instead we get a bunch of gripes from a person who sees a tiny portion of the website yell at him every time he opens the site.
separating public discourse into two distinct echo chambers is among the worst possible things I can imagine for our society right now
I'm fine with not separating discourse.
So long as there is an open network where we can analyzer participants behaviors, and where we don't have to be subject to the moderation and algorithmic wins of a single controlling interest. So long as we can shield ourselves from people we don't like.
There seems to be very very very few places where there are the fundamentals in place for it to make sense to be there. There are very popular very large networks, but I absolutely cannot imagine how anyone is remotely ok trusting the "public discourse" to be held on such imbalanced lopsided private property, that's tilting the discourse invisibly underfoot.
So long as there is an open network where we can analyzer participants behaviors, and where we don't have to be subject to the moderation and algorithmic wins of a single controlling interest. So long as we can shield ourselves from people we don't like.
There seems to be very very very few places where there are the fundamentals in place for it to make sense to be there. There are very popular very large networks, but I absolutely cannot imagine how anyone is remotely ok trusting the "public discourse" to be held on such imbalanced lopsided private property, that's tilting the discourse invisibly underfoot.
Do you volunteer as tribute to go yell into the void you don't agree with, though?
No, lol, I don't partake at all. I post in a few subreddits, and lurk here, but that's about it. Ditching social media, and not getting involved in temporal, partisan issues, has been more of a boon to my mental health than exercise, sleep, and diet. I cannot recommend it enough.
I guess I should add: I understand why people do what they do, and I see how we arrived at this point. I don't blame anyone on Bluesky for not wanting to associate with certain types. But, it seems the end results are echo chambers which certainly aren't healthy for a functioning democracy.
I guess I should add: I understand why people do what they do, and I see how we arrived at this point. I don't blame anyone on Bluesky for not wanting to associate with certain types. But, it seems the end results are echo chambers which certainly aren't healthy for a functioning democracy.
I really don't want to be the one who has to go to the other places for the sake of discourse and be told that because I enjoyed some some song that I'm a nazi or a libtard ...
I don't disagree with you entirely, but I also am not sure I'm doing any good being called names and I want to spend time places online where folks don't hate at me.
I don't disagree with you entirely, but I also am not sure I'm doing any good being called names and I want to spend time places online where folks don't hate at me.
Where do we go? The public squares are owned by oligarchs.
Since when is a private social media website the public square? X doesn't even allow browsing most posts or responses, with almost everything except gory videos requiring a login.
I can't agree, it's been nice to have these people off Twitter. They don't contribute much and their shrillness got really old.
As someone who never used Bluesky or X, the only thing this article has convinced me of is that the author is terminally online. They seemingly ignore that all three of their "essential characteristics" are just byproducts of modernity. Dialectic digression and credentialism are the product of empiricism dominating the human spirit. Nobody prays to get rid of illness anymore, you go to the doctor so they can give you an empirically-tested cure. And it works better than prayer, hence, we worship digression and credentials.
Catastrophism is native to American politics. How, exactly, you live in a globalist world without forming an opinion on the matter is a study of sociopaths for someone else. There is no post-WWII America without the myth of catastrophe and salvation via nuclear war. We built this nation, and set the global status-quo, on the back of a global catastrophe. Ignoring that fact doesn't make you a better historian, it makes you blind.
Maybe those Bluesky users are just repeating the past 150 years of anthropological research that pertains to postmodern human politics. This Nate Silver guy would probably cream his shorts if he read Hegel.
Catastrophism is native to American politics. How, exactly, you live in a globalist world without forming an opinion on the matter is a study of sociopaths for someone else. There is no post-WWII America without the myth of catastrophe and salvation via nuclear war. We built this nation, and set the global status-quo, on the back of a global catastrophe. Ignoring that fact doesn't make you a better historian, it makes you blind.
Maybe those Bluesky users are just repeating the past 150 years of anthropological research that pertains to postmodern human politics. This Nate Silver guy would probably cream his shorts if he read Hegel.
Have whatever opinion of Nate Silver you'd like, but acting like you don't know who he is makes your argument have less standing.
And the last line you wrote is gross.
And the last line you wrote is gross.
Your comment made me look up who Nate Silver is. I doubt I will remember in a week from now.
If you're suffering from memory loss/retention of information, why did you choose to post a comment here memorializing your forgetfulness instead of using assistive technology or a notepad to simply write down the info you're trying to remember?
Huh? I just honestly didn't know who he was, and have not heard of him before. I am not in the US, if you assumed that. And I didn't claim I care to remember about him next week?
Is it really so hard to just read what somebody writes without reading something into it that just isn't there? When in doubt, simply ask, no need to insinuate.
Is it really so hard to just read what somebody writes without reading something into it that just isn't there? When in doubt, simply ask, no need to insinuate.
> Your comment made me look up who Nate Silver is. I doubt I will remember in a week from now.
That was the entirety of your comment/response/addition to the conversation. Someone has to read into it because there's nothing to it.
Should I make a post every time I look something up but think to myself that I'll likely forget it next week, as you did in the quoted example? Perhaps everyone in the comments section would like to know how my working memory is, too?
That was the entirety of your comment/response/addition to the conversation. Someone has to read into it because there's nothing to it.
Should I make a post every time I look something up but think to myself that I'll likely forget it next week, as you did in the quoted example? Perhaps everyone in the comments section would like to know how my working memory is, too?
God, you're insecure.
Just a few hours ago, your interaction with another user had them respond to you with this:
> You only comment to disagree without offering anything of value. Prove me wrong.
I'll repeat their request. Let's see what you have to say that is of value.
> You only comment to disagree without offering anything of value. Prove me wrong.
I'll repeat their request. Let's see what you have to say that is of value.
Case in point.
It's tough being an ethical person with a platform these days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrLwxfnCSGg&t=1285s
[deleted]
I think Nate Silver is a pretty famous poll maker/statistician, but as a pundit he’s basically “just some guy with an opinion,” and I think it’s accurate and healthy that the GP poster treats him that way.
What part of the last line of the comment I responded to resonates with you most?
Also Bluesky was never the "prom king" even on his graph it had 3% market share at its peak WHILE X had 30%.
That being said, it was impressive for it to hit 3%, but last I heard every conservative person that tried to join it was instabanned within 3 minutes. You'll never have a rival to X if you ban half the population.