Bluesky

[Batty31]

I have a personal account there and an account for my radio stuff. Been there about a year. Plenty of Mets stuff on my feed. I don’t get bots following me, just random fake celebrity accounts. I prefer it over X though my accounts there are still active.

[TransMonk]

The more I use BlueSky, the less I like it. It seems like liberals are trying to make it their interpretation of anti-X...which is not what I'm looking for.

Can we no longer have a public square where a conversation about differing viewpoints can occur without being crashed by Nazis?

I'm thinking of ditching Facebook, Twitter, BlueSky, my very limited Instagram account and my very limited Threads account cold-turkey around inauguration day. I'll subscribe to a couple of news aggregators for info and use Reddit for the conversation. The more I think about it, the more interested I become in experiencing the absence of those feeds.

[metirish]

I totally hear you, Bluesky is bloody boring , I deactivated FB for a month and didn't miss it, reactivated today and man the feed is just all pages I didn't sign up for , garbage , will deactivate again... I never got into Reddit at all , I think I never liked the thread collapse look of it, I do like IG for my birds

[Benjamin Grimm]

the feed is just all pages I didn't sign up for

It's crazy how that happened. For me, Facebook has become a way to see old Calvin and Hobbes strips. I get those (which I never asked for), some cool old baseball photos, and occasionally something posted by someone I know.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

It seems like everyone at once came to realize Facebook could go on without their contributions, and they replaced your friends with algorithm-determined AI content posts.

I'm way off Twitter now. My "work" Twitter took 10 years of 1 follower at a time to be kinda substantial... at one time I thought about applying for a blue check

I kinda like Reddit, if you stick to topics you care about.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I have no social media presence. None. Never did.

[Centerfield]

I’m continuing to give Bluesky a shot. I hate all the right wing garbage on my Twitter feed and need that shit to fail.

Like. I just want real time sports news. Not Trump propaganda.

[Frayed Knot]

I personally thought Bluesky started going downhill right after Dickey Betts died.

[Buck4Prez]

I use Facebook to communicate with family mainly. And I wouldn't communicate or see random pictures of distant cousins or casual friends otherwise. Not like I'm going to text every one of them "hey, what's your christmas morning look like?" I use the 'most recent' feed which filters out the every other post being Calvin and Hobbes comics I didn't sign up for, but I'm starting to suspect it's algorithm in there too, because I don't see everything. Like events my children are at, I'd like to see the photos other parents took and they don't always seem to show up.

I have some Instagram accounts for some projects, but without a most recent feed it's the same nonsense as Facebook, with the added bonus of infecting my facebook stories or reels or whatever with overlap I don't want.

Bluesky hits the water cooler/live sports itch for me, and it definitely will once the season starts. Even without the fascists, the software is ruined at Twitter.

If you don't have social media, besides thecranepool, what do you even do? Are you the people that are having the small talk in the bagel shop 3 day old news, and still think Ohtani was involved with gambling because the non-social media didn't really talk about the Ippei case and follow-up?

[batmagadanleadoff]

If you don't have social media, besides thecranepool, what do you even do? Are you the people that are having the small talk in the bagel shop 3 day old news, and still think Ohtani was involved with gambling because the non-social media didn't really talk about the Ippei case and follow-up?

I get my news from the news. Not TikTok. I would guess that I read about as many newspapers and magazines, whether in print or from the web, as anybody out there.

[Buck4Prez]

If you don't have social media, besides thecranepool, what do you even do? Are you the people that are having the small talk in the bagel shop 3 day old news, and still think Ohtani was involved with gambling because the non-social media didn't really talk about the Ippei case and follow-up?

I get my news from the news. Not TikTok. I would guess that I read about as many newspapers and magazines, whether in print or from the web, as anybody out there.

people say that like they think that makes them better informed. It doesn't.

I think I've seen you post and/or mock MSM stuff here that's blatant capitulation haven't I? People reading that certainly aren't getting more accurate news than someone who listens to a 60 second breakdown from some guy on TikTok hitting all the salient points while walking down the street. TikTok isn't a news app, but as long as you treat everything with a critical eye, as you should the New York Times and everything else, it can certainly keep you pretty informed on a lot of things.

It doesn't fill the live sports/reaction stuff that you get from a Bluesky/Twitter type app, but it might be one of the more enjoyable apps out there for me. Just today I saw a pithy brit reviewing an ice skating rink somewhere, a fun cocktail making video, a silly fun fact/random thought video from someone I find enjoyable, a video clip from Taylor Tomlinson's show that makes me want to watch it, a video clip from DropoutTV that I always enjoy, a silly animated D&D skit..

I did have to swipe up on a couple of ads inbetween, and one or two things I was less interested in, but all in all the signal-noise ratio there is pretty good.

[batmagadanleadoff]

That's all good. But the idea that someone who isn't on BlueSky is out of touch news-wise is ridiculous. This is a case by case, or person by person issue. (People say that as if BlueSky makes them better informed).

[batmagadanleadoff]

I mean ... social media is more reliable than the NYT? Really? X? Twitter? Facebook? Truth Social? Where nothing is vetted and anybody can post anything? And that's more credible, more reliable than a WAPO piece? Wowza! No wonder the psychopath-elect won.

[TransMonk]

On pre-Musk Twitter, I followed mostly journalists and politicos. I made sure I was seeing "real news" reported in similar ways from multiple sites. Following these accounts also showed which journalists were giving "commentary" via their posts and, over time, I was able to recognize the bias for most of them and weighed their posts and articles shared for it.

I have been exploring services like Flipboard, Feedly and All Sides, which are news aggregators. All Sides provides the same stories from three different views (left, right, center) and scores media biases. None of them are perfect, but neither are any of the socials.

Reddit now gives me the most satisfaction of seeing topics discussed and argued. The posts/comments there tend to be longer form and more thought out than Twitter or Facebook one-liners. While there are still many trolls and idiots, the site presents the best discussion threads first, so you don't have to scroll through the same amount of bullshit in the comments section. It does go back to more of a message board look and feel...but we're all used to that here, right?

I think Twitter was best used for live events (sports, TV shows, elections) because the conversations are happening in real time. I will miss it and I don't have a go-to site that does that anymore.

I also subscribe to NYT and listen to Up First from NPR everyday. I read the print version of the NYT and my local rag on Sundays.

[Buck4Prez]

I mean ... social media is more reliable than the NYT? Really? X? Twitter? Facebook? Truth Social? Where nothing is vetted and anybody can post anything? And that's more credible, more reliable than a WAPO piece? Wowza! No wonder the psychopath-elect won.

it depends. Is it Ross Douthat? Maureen Dowd? Maggie Haberman? trash. That's not informed.

The absolute hands down best analysis I've seen about the Tiktok "banning" debate/court cases is from a lawyer dad on TikTok (reposted elsewhere I imagine) who mostly posts silly stuff about being a dad of 4 kids. https://www.tiktok.com/@dadchats/video/ ... 3302542634 if you're interested.

The best thing about social media is that it gives a voice to everyone. There are A LOT of good voices out there, and for many many reasons, not all of the best voices on a topic are going to be journalists covering that topic. 99% of the time, the journalist is (hopefully) doing research and trying to report on and cover that topic, and many do a decent job of it, but there's always going to be nuance do it that you can't capture that way. And this often leads to the "both sides" fallacy, where journalists will fall into the trap of thinking giving a fair and balanced accounting of the detractors is good journalism, lending credence to stances that aren't taken in good faith and are essentially violence. "pro life" movements were/are just misogyny and control in response to women reaching for equal rights. You can see where we are today.

Did you know there's never been an independent study of trans people in sports and what advantages/disadvantages they may have? Hence any reporting on advantages, any bans, and what not are conjecture and opinion. But certainly doesn't feel like that's the way it's presented. btw, here's a really great independent podcast (not quite social media, but anyone can create one, and certainly were people talking about it on social media.) https://www.tested-podcast.com/

Look at masks, vaccine "skepticism", various stuff regarding Covid. I read so much good writing, well reasoned takes and research on social media that was lost, buried or non-existent on places like WaPo giving endless cover to the republican psyop on vaccines. I first saw the "you can detect covid in poop and it looks like it could be a good warning indicator" stuff on Twitter well before it reached the papers, if it ever even did.

but essentially, I assume someone that's online, regularly on social media type places, is generally better informed than someone who only gets news through very specific and dedicated news sources. If they're only consuming reposted republican/fox/joe rogan nonsense in their own bubble, of course not. But people dialed into a bunch of different things, constantly seeing a stream of information? Absolutely. There's a reason Musk bought twitter and started destroying it and scattering people.

[batmagadanleadoff]

From the Salon article I just linked to in the Loco Politics thread:

I wrote about this right after the election, but it bears repeating: One of the best predictors, if not the best predictor, of a Trump vote is how poor a person's information ecosystem is. People who read or watch real news outlets voted overwhelmingly for Harris. People who get their political information from social media voted for Trump. Subsequently, polls showed that Trump voters couldn't answer basic factual questions about what the candidates believed. Harris voters were far more accurate.

[Buck4Prez]

That's a gross mis-generalization. I'd love to see what they classify as 'real' news sites and what are 'social' media sites. imo, anything that talks about swing voters or median voters isn't to be trusted.

"After backing Trump, low-income voters hope he doesn’t slash their benefits"

Oh gee, i'm just shocked all the people struggling with inflation and rising costs everywhere weren't swayed by the Democrats "the economy is great!" "inflation is down!" platform and got bamboozled by a grifter. Maybe if they would just read Heather Long in the Washington Post and actually celebrate America properly they wouldn't have to spend 3x on milk and eggs. duh.

Opinion
Heather Long
This is a great economy. Why can’t we celebrate it?
2024 is shaping up to be one of the best economic years of many Americans’ lifetimes.

Updated October 10, 2024

[batmagadanleadoff]

Oh gee, i'm just shocked all the people struggling with inflation and rising costs everywhere weren't swayed by the Democrats "the economy is great!" "inflation is down!" platform and got bamboozled by a grifter.

So of course, the logical thing to do is to vote for the party that is always, I mean always, threatening to drastically cut the safety net. Because who am I to question the impeccable logic and thought processes of a group of idiots, imbeciles and morons that believe in QAnon and that JFK, Jr. is not only still alive but secretly running the government from beneath a sunken underwater city? And that blue states are performing 13th month abortions?

The internet giveth and taketh away. Sports Illustrated is gone. Its format is obsolete. Nobody wants to wait a whole week anymore to read news recaps. Print news is dying too because nobody wants to wait a whole day to have to buy a newspaper to read the news anymore. Nobody even wants to bother to have to go to a newsstand to pick up a newspaper anymore -- not when you can stumble out of bed at 4:30 in the morning to take a piss and then, while you're at it, log onto the web to get the news in your underwears from the warm comfort of your home. Not when web newsfeeds are updated instantly and in real-time. The downside is that anybody can now make up the news itself. Facts today, such as they are, are more malleable than ever. Where we used to have Walter Cronkite, we now have Joe Rogan and most people are either too stupid or too uninformed to tell the difference. This is your social media.

[Buck4Prez]

Facts today, such as they are, are more malleable than ever. Where we used to have Walter Cronkite, we now have Joe Rogan and most people are either too stupid or too uninformed to tell the difference. This is your social media.

Are they? citation needed. There are more takes masquerading as facts, but the facts themselves are not more malleable, except in that sense that would Walter Cronkite told you was a fact was actually pretty malleable to begin with, and people today have more context.

But for every under-informed 45 year old redneck there are probably 3 decently-informed Gen Z kids in their 20s, that was disincentivized to vote. The first group was presented with bad choices and chose the worse one, the second group was presented with bad choices and maybe is less affected by some of the most dire catastrophes that are going to happen over the next four years or are enamored to it because it's not like they've known anything better. Could both groups have sat down and done a researched analysis and a pro/con list? sure, but that's never going to happen. Nothing works that way, you don't get change by making a spreadsheet.

So of course, the logical thing to do is to vote for the party that is always, I mean always, threatening to drastically cut the safety net.

If only it were that black and white. It's all lies but I can reiterate that they think trump care about lowering prices and that the Democrats were saying everything was fine. Maybe their priorities were other issues. Maybe they're Muslim and they're only poor because they're trying to bail out their family members we're bombing in Gaza. trump's not going to stop that obviously, but "vote for the admin bombing your uncle because the other guy will bomb your uncle AND take away medicare" isn't really a compelling message.

People are plenty informed via social media, the problem is that they're informed about democrats too, who consistently are insincere, don't have a platform, and actively attack the people within the party that do.

You don't engender turnout and support by being trump-lite.

[whippoorwill]

Maybe a little off topic but with the anniversary of the big tsunami, I was looking for video and found sooooo many obviously fake ones.

[batmagadanleadoff]

but "vote for the admin bombing your uncle because the other guy will bomb your uncle AND take away medicare" isn't really a compelling message.

Of course it is. And anybody that picks the option to have Gaza bombed and have their medicare taken anyway is a fucking retard.

I don't know where this is going. If you want to convince me that the Dems are terrible at messaging, I'm right there with you on that point. They're pathetic. Kamala and the Dems are mostly decent folk who want to better the lives of ordinary Americans. I can't say that about the other party, which isn't really a party anymore, but a pirate ship motivated by cruelty and loyalty to the billionaire class.

But this started out with your ridiculous claim that one can't follow the news without reading social media. It's a bonkers claim and my own personal experiences bear this out. The friends and acquaintances I have that seem to get most of their information from social media are, sadly, ignoramuses and I don't even bother engaging them. I just smile politely at their lunatic opinions and move on.

[Buck4Prez]

But this started out with your ridiculous claim that one can't follow the news without reading social media. It's a bonkers claim and my own personal experiences bear this out. The friends and acquaintances I have that seem to get most of their information from social media are, sadly, ignoramuses and I don't even bother engaging them. I just smile politely at their lunatic opinions and move on.

There's a difference between "only gets news from stuff that comes across their feed" versus "actively seeks out news". The people you're referring too are mostly the first category, people who follow entertainment pages like fox news, joe rogan, libs of tiktok and that ilk.

my point, at it's essence, is that "traditional" news sources may have a higher floor of information, but they've also got a lower ceiling. The Washington post has a view of the world, a static set of employees, and they're delivering news within that view, but it also makes it harder to cover things that aren't in their wheelhouse, or as in depth. And because they have topics, and beat reporters, there's always going to be "news" on that front, even if it's the 4000th most interesting thing that happened. You're not going to pull your guy that goes to get sound bites from white house press conferences to say, add coverage to a NJ drone story.

Which brings me to my Ippei jab. Once the coverage of it shifted to mainly a standard gambling addiction story and the protagonist was simply an interpreter and not a baseball player, coverage dropped off, particularly in non-MLB circles.