> Bluesky is lefty twitter now and I want no business with that platform.
I love hearing people say this, because in reality Bluesky covers most of the political dimensions one wants to subdivide a population by except the most toxic of participants. Also, most of the academics have moved to Bluesky because Twitter became toxic / suppressed speech dramatically and at the whims of one Mr. Musk. As per usual, where the "lefties" are the "righties" follow (to use the parlance of the prior comment) be is social media, good policy, you name it.
Plenty of conservatives are there, such as Lincoln project folks, right libertarians, and even National Review & Reason IIRC. But I guess these folks don't count these days as conservative (despite definitionally being so, just not aligned with modern US Republican policy planks)? Not sure.
Anyhow, I'm enjoying Bluesky for what it is -- a new social media platform that isn't fully encumbered by bots and nonsense for a bit.
> Twitter became toxic / suppressed speech dramatically
But what kind of speech is supressed nowadays on X? what about Bluesky? does Bluesky not supress any speech?
> But what kind of speech is supressed nowadays on X?
Is there even a way to find out, considering their main feed is a product of opaque suggestion algorithm and very few use the Following timeline as the main mode?
> what about Bluesky? does Bluesky not supress any speech?
The end-user is put in charge of that and by default it’s a chronological feed, I believe, which means no suppression unless it’s something illegal in US (CSAM, links to CSAM, etc.) and Bluesky could be held responsible for distrubuting that stuff.
Sure. CSAM.
Meanwhile Twitter is now openly suppressing links off-site. For financial reasons rather than ideological ones (although the latter may also be occurring).