A photograph of a short-eared owl mid-flight was the last Instagram post biology professor Carl Bergstrom shared before announcing his departure from the platform Jan. 10.
Or know how. Just because they are scientists doesn’t mean that they are necessarily particularly computer literate. I once had to explain to a university professor that wireless electricity doesn’t exist, and the Wi-Fi is only for internet. So yeah.
Well there’s two possible implementations of wireless power transfer.
There’s the way we use to charge our phones, Which is just an electromagnetic effect with no real way to extend its range. That technology has progressed as far as it’s ever going to get.
The other way is through power beaming using infrared lasers and special crystals. That technology does have potential but is nowhere close to being consumer ready yet. One day a router may include both features but not today and certainly not in 2016 when this happened.
Using social media is far removed from operating your own publicly available social media server.
This coming from someone who is trying to get more mastodon usage in higher ed. Profs aren’t the ones who operate these things. Merely getting the approval to get the project started is an immense task.
University IT departments don’t want to be running some random Mastodon on the server anyway. It’s got nothing to do with the universities day-to-day operations it’s just an extra thing that would be required on top of what they already do.
Also the only university professors who would actually be able to run the server themselves will be those in the computer science domain. A biologist isn’t going to know how to do it any more than any random member of the public.
It doesn’t make any sense for the University or specific professors to officially host a fediverse community in the first place, it is the wrong system of governance and community ownership here. Something like a student club or independent association of professors and students should host fediverse communities that then become unofficially associated with the University and the University should be hands off unless something really egregious happens.
The only reason to create a fediverse server directly under the auspices of a University or under an official capacity for the University would be to use the fediverse server as a public communication tool (like how Universities and other institutions might use Twitter), which actually isn’t a bad idea but is totally separate from what people are suggesting here…
The thing about federation is there isn’t really any particular reason to even set up a community over simply using one that’s already in existence except possibly to enforce your own moderating rules.
Any public facing IT system stood up in the higher ed system I am familiar with, requires IT support to be engaged. A part of that process is sending the request through a software review board, department’s IT, centralized IT, and then assigned to a project manager.
Otherwise, it would be considered a rogue service, and turned off at the edge, and core routers.
Being a scientist also kinda means understanding what are your strengths, and how you can combine them with other people who are smart along very specific narrow vectors.
Being a scientist means understanding that if you work together with the right kind of smart, curious people you can build amazing things that will improve the world.
Being a scientist in 2025 means understanding the modern business world is utter bullshit and will rot any science it touches to the core.
Being a scientist, like truly living that ethos, means being someone who believes the truth is important and that there are power structures who will fight tooth and nail to subdue that truth or hoard it to themselves for personal gain.
Being a scientist thus effectively means that I would expect that after having a brief conversation with you that you would at least understand the grave danger that entrusting science communication in another for profit social media company poses and how it doesn’t seem sensible to take that risk when the actual material barriers to creating Fediverse communities as alternatives aren’t actually that high no matter how much it feels like the barriers are impossible and the network effect is unbeatable.
Don’t get me wrong, those hurdles are real, the fediverse can be confusing, there are lots of growing pains here… however, not every scientist needs to become an expert in selfhosting Fediverse software, and not every scientist needs to become a Fediverse evangelist (although it wouldn’t hurt), but we do need to connect boldly and clearly the tragic hypocrisy of supposedly truth valuing people (scientists, science communicators and leaders that defend science) all shepherding dutifully onto another platform that will silence and betray them violently.
Scientists are inherently aligned with modern progressive politics, or rather scientists need to understand they are at everything up to physical bodily danger from being hurt by conservatives now and they need to understand that makes them fundamentally aligned with modern progressive politics.
There is no “I don’t want to get political here” and the failure of the science community at large to recognize how embracing Bluesky as if it was a genuine solution to the unfolding catastrophe of science being defunded and destroyed is embarrassing. Those of us on the Fediverse should be kind, but also we should make fun of them for not using their brains. They clearly have them. Fucking use them you fools.
Bluesky is a for profit corporate venture, the same EXACT incentives that now have placed us all very much in danger and have placed the very funding structures of science in danger the world over (at least in US/European connected science communities) are at play in Bluesky and Scientists betray the begrudging respect the public has for their intelligence (even if they pretend to hate Scientists) by treating Bluesky like it is safe. Bluesky is not safe. This is no different than scientists endorsing any other thing that is fundamentally a threat to the health and safety of innocent people. It is just new, people are scared and scientists are largely too overwhelmed to see things for how they are.
At the end of the day, every Scientist needs to hear to their face that Bluesky is a threat to science, science education and the free access to knowledge in general the world over, they need to defend their choice to go on Bluesky anyways instead of Mastodon (both is fine tho) along the terms of what motivates their pursuit of studying and doing science. I don’t care if scientists are already overwhelmed and scared, they along with everyone else have all the information to understand why choosing Bluesky to throw the weight of science communication behind is dangerous, and it is unacceptable to give them a pass because 2025 is a terrifying mess. 2025 is a terrifying mess for reasons DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS DISCUSSION. Scientists should understand that better than almost anyone else if they are paying attention, and many do which is why Mastodon is full of scientists!
No, aspects of the Bluesky system are open source. The moderation and filtering layer is effectively centralized, is specifically not clarified to leave open the possibility for monetization such as forcing ads on users, and even if you could theoretically run your own Bluesky network… it would never be a useful alternative to the Official Bubble maintained by the Bluesky corporation that you must submit to or be left out in the cold interacting with users only on alternate, small personal networks.
3rd party moderation tools already exists, using the same API as the official moderation system, available to subscribe to even directly in the official app. If you don’t want bluesky’s moderation decisions enforced, you can run a different client which don’t apply the bluesky labels (or if the bluesky appview blocks something entirely, you can circumvent that and retrieve it directly from that user’s PDS)
is specifically not clarified to leave open the possibility for monetization such as forcing as on users
What
The network is specifically designed around portability and content addressing so they can’t lock you in
it would never be a useful alternative to the Official Bubble maintained by the Bluesky corporation that you must submit to or be left out in the cold interacting with users only on alternate, small personal networks.
There are already plenty of people running their own self hosted PDS servers to host their account, talking to the rest of the bluesky users, using 3rd party moderation filters and 3rd party clients, with 3rd party feed generators to view stuff like topic specific feeds
Also there’s bridgy so you can talk across Mastodon / bluesky by letting bridgy mirror posts and replies between the two networks
Is the appview part of Bluesky open source? If so why not? How does that not make saying “Bluesky is open source” an inaccurate statement, or at least an incomplete statement? Can somebody reasonably run their own relay while handling a realistic amount of data from interactions?
Also there’s bridgy so you can talk across Mastodon / bluesky by letting bridgy mirror posts and replies between the two networks
A bridge is something you build and maintain, requiring constant maintenance, that joins a place that is connected with a place that is not.
is specifically not clarified to leave open the possibility for monetization such as forcing as on users
What
The old design was built to scale to a few million users. The new backend is revised to handle ~hundreds of millions. They’ll releasing bits and pieces at a time.
while I agree, the reality of the situation is that when you get down to comparing feature to feature, open source solutions tend to be technically inferior to proprietary ones.
I use linux because I hate microsoft, not because it’s more feature complete than windows (it isn’t).
I use lemmy because I hate u/spez, not because it’s more feature complete than reddit (it isn’t).
I use blender because it’s free and it’s actually kinda great, if all free and open source software was like blender, then it would be a no-brainer to use FOSS all of the time, and it would be easy to convince the normies to do the same.
also also
I’m using linux mint, i have minor complaints about it, but nothing worse than what microsoft is currently doing with windows. It’s just different, and that bothers me. middle click paste is the bane of my existence, but other people swear by it. Just before I switched over, I learned about windows 10’s built in emoji keyboard, and I really liked that. A year later (literally last week) I discovered a program that does most of what the windows emoji thingy did, and I can manually edit a keybind for the function to accomplish amost the same thing. FOSS, yay, it’s free if you don’t value your time in currency amounts. FOSS could be so good if only it were good.
Yeah. Another Linux mint user here, and when it comes to “feature” differences with Windows it’s usually for the better. I describe it to people as the difference between an OS trying to fulfill the diverse needs of all the stakeholders in a mega corporation, versus an OS that was made to serve the needs of only the users.
For a normal mainstream user that pretty much just needs a web browser and maybe a local document/spreadsheet editor it is faster and stays out of the way.
For a power user that fiddles with the system like a lot of people on Lemmy probably are, you learn different ways to fix different issues on the two. Linux allows you the control to do what you want with your machine, and that also means you can do bad stuff. So there’s always a tradeoff.
For people somewhere in the middle, maybe a normal user who has niche hardware for their hobby, it’s a toss up. I’m sure Windows comes out ahead due to its popularity, which means that’s where the vendor puts their effort.
while I agree, the reality of the situation is that when you get down to comparing feature to feature, open source solutions tend to be technically inferior to proprietary ones.
Yes. But there is nothing bluesky does that mastodon doesn’t. It’s a platform to write short text posts and have it viewed by other people. It’s not rocket science.
Never meet your heroes. If a scientist is human, they’re as fallible as any other. Just like some teachers aren’t there because they’re passionate. Some legitimately are bad if you ever had parent teacher conferences. Not passion nor intelligence saves you from making poor choices
I’m just saying, because someone is a scientist absolutely does not absolve them of human fallibility. I just don’t like the take of “because scientist, therefore smart or wise” and that’s not true, they’re just (hopefully) educated and credible in their one specific field and nothing else. I wouldn’t blindly trust a scientist’s choice of social network. It makes no sense. I’d instead trust their education on their specific field.
Right but Mastodon is irritating to use, isn’t it? It has actual problems. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that it doesn’t have problems and therefore anyone not using it is being ignorant.
I’m just a little sick of this attitude that everyone on here seems to have that everyone should be using Mastodon without consideration for the fact that it does have quite a large number of downsides. It’s ridiculous not to accept that fact and not to want to improve the platform so that the downside aren’t there and then people would use it.
You can’t berate people for not using the product you want them to use if the product you want them to use is annoying to use
I feel like scientists should move towards open source solutions … I feel like most scientists are smart enough to launch a mastodon server, but well.
Never worked in academia eh? Plenty of dumb (and, more importantly here, computer illiterate) people there too.
I’m pretty sure there are a handful of technically literate scientists who are able to install servers lmao.
Most scientists aren’t allowed to do stuff like that, or purely just don’t have the time.
Or know how. Just because they are scientists doesn’t mean that they are necessarily particularly computer literate. I once had to explain to a university professor that wireless electricity doesn’t exist, and the Wi-Fi is only for internet. So yeah.
I mean, wireless electricity tech does exist, it just sucks and is horribly inefficient at any reasonable distance.
Well there’s two possible implementations of wireless power transfer.
There’s the way we use to charge our phones, Which is just an electromagnetic effect with no real way to extend its range. That technology has progressed as far as it’s ever going to get.
The other way is through power beaming using infrared lasers and special crystals. That technology does have potential but is nowhere close to being consumer ready yet. One day a router may include both features but not today and certainly not in 2016 when this happened.
What… Are you taking about? I know hundreds of scientists and the vast majority of them interact with social media just as much as normal people.
I’d reckon that managing a social media server is more involved than just using social media.
Not required to join the fediverse, only to host your own community yourself, which is NOT what scientists need to do (unless they want to).
And when is the next circle jerk about how making an account on the Fediverse is too complicated for “normal people?”
Using social media is far removed from operating your own publicly available social media server.
This coming from someone who is trying to get more mastodon usage in higher ed. Profs aren’t the ones who operate these things. Merely getting the approval to get the project started is an immense task.
University IT departments don’t want to be running some random Mastodon on the server anyway. It’s got nothing to do with the universities day-to-day operations it’s just an extra thing that would be required on top of what they already do.
Also the only university professors who would actually be able to run the server themselves will be those in the computer science domain. A biologist isn’t going to know how to do it any more than any random member of the public.
It doesn’t make any sense for the University or specific professors to officially host a fediverse community in the first place, it is the wrong system of governance and community ownership here. Something like a student club or independent association of professors and students should host fediverse communities that then become unofficially associated with the University and the University should be hands off unless something really egregious happens.
The only reason to create a fediverse server directly under the auspices of a University or under an official capacity for the University would be to use the fediverse server as a public communication tool (like how Universities and other institutions might use Twitter), which actually isn’t a bad idea but is totally separate from what people are suggesting here…
The thing about federation is there isn’t really any particular reason to even set up a community over simply using one that’s already in existence except possibly to enforce your own moderating rules.
My question was about the “scientists are not allowed to” part. I’ve never heard to such restrictions, and been in the field for more than a decade.
Any public facing IT system stood up in the higher ed system I am familiar with, requires IT support to be engaged. A part of that process is sending the request through a software review board, department’s IT, centralized IT, and then assigned to a project manager.
Otherwise, it would be considered a rogue service, and turned off at the edge, and core routers.
Being a scientist doesn’t mean you have the technical knowledge to run a public facing server.
Being a scientist kinda means to me you’re able to follow a very easy to understand guide to install mastodon on …
Being a scientist also kinda means understanding what are your strengths, and how you can combine them with other people who are smart along very specific narrow vectors.
Being a scientist means understanding that if you work together with the right kind of smart, curious people you can build amazing things that will improve the world.
Being a scientist in 2025 means understanding the modern business world is utter bullshit and will rot any science it touches to the core.
Being a scientist, like truly living that ethos, means being someone who believes the truth is important and that there are power structures who will fight tooth and nail to subdue that truth or hoard it to themselves for personal gain.
Being a scientist thus effectively means that I would expect that after having a brief conversation with you that you would at least understand the grave danger that entrusting science communication in another for profit social media company poses and how it doesn’t seem sensible to take that risk when the actual material barriers to creating Fediverse communities as alternatives aren’t actually that high no matter how much it feels like the barriers are impossible and the network effect is unbeatable.
Don’t get me wrong, those hurdles are real, the fediverse can be confusing, there are lots of growing pains here… however, not every scientist needs to become an expert in selfhosting Fediverse software, and not every scientist needs to become a Fediverse evangelist (although it wouldn’t hurt), but we do need to connect boldly and clearly the tragic hypocrisy of supposedly truth valuing people (scientists, science communicators and leaders that defend science) all shepherding dutifully onto another platform that will silence and betray them violently.
Scientists are inherently aligned with modern progressive politics, or rather scientists need to understand they are at everything up to physical bodily danger from being hurt by conservatives now and they need to understand that makes them fundamentally aligned with modern progressive politics.
There is no “I don’t want to get political here” and the failure of the science community at large to recognize how embracing Bluesky as if it was a genuine solution to the unfolding catastrophe of science being defunded and destroyed is embarrassing. Those of us on the Fediverse should be kind, but also we should make fun of them for not using their brains. They clearly have them. Fucking use them you fools.
Bluesky is a for profit corporate venture, the same EXACT incentives that now have placed us all very much in danger and have placed the very funding structures of science in danger the world over (at least in US/European connected science communities) are at play in Bluesky and Scientists betray the begrudging respect the public has for their intelligence (even if they pretend to hate Scientists) by treating Bluesky like it is safe. Bluesky is not safe. This is no different than scientists endorsing any other thing that is fundamentally a threat to the health and safety of innocent people. It is just new, people are scared and scientists are largely too overwhelmed to see things for how they are.
At the end of the day, every Scientist needs to hear to their face that Bluesky is a threat to science, science education and the free access to knowledge in general the world over, they need to defend their choice to go on Bluesky anyways instead of Mastodon (both is fine tho) along the terms of what motivates their pursuit of studying and doing science. I don’t care if scientists are already overwhelmed and scared, they along with everyone else have all the information to understand why choosing Bluesky to throw the weight of science communication behind is dangerous, and it is unacceptable to give them a pass because 2025 is a terrifying mess. 2025 is a terrifying mess for reasons DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS DISCUSSION. Scientists should understand that better than almost anyone else if they are paying attention, and many do which is why Mastodon is full of scientists!
Bluesky is a public benefit corporation. That’s very different from for profit
It has investors, those investors are going to want money.
Sure, but the openness of the protocols, especially the portability of accounts, makes it hard for them to push negative changes on users.
Bluesky is open source though
No, aspects of the Bluesky system are open source. The moderation and filtering layer is effectively centralized, is specifically not clarified to leave open the possibility for monetization such as forcing ads on users, and even if you could theoretically run your own Bluesky network… it would never be a useful alternative to the Official Bubble maintained by the Bluesky corporation that you must submit to or be left out in the cold interacting with users only on alternate, small personal networks.
3rd party moderation tools already exists, using the same API as the official moderation system, available to subscribe to even directly in the official app. If you don’t want bluesky’s moderation decisions enforced, you can run a different client which don’t apply the bluesky labels (or if the bluesky appview blocks something entirely, you can circumvent that and retrieve it directly from that user’s PDS)
What
The network is specifically designed around portability and content addressing so they can’t lock you in
There are already plenty of people running their own self hosted PDS servers to host their account, talking to the rest of the bluesky users, using 3rd party moderation filters and 3rd party clients, with 3rd party feed generators to view stuff like topic specific feeds
Also there’s bridgy so you can talk across Mastodon / bluesky by letting bridgy mirror posts and replies between the two networks
Is the appview part of Bluesky open source? If so why not? How does that not make saying “Bluesky is open source” an inaccurate statement, or at least an incomplete statement? Can somebody reasonably run their own relay while handling a realistic amount of data from interactions?
A bridge is something you build and maintain, requiring constant maintenance, that joins a place that is connected with a place that is not.
Typo, sorry I meant to put *ads in there
https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/05/bluesky-ceo-jay-graber-is-reshaping-social-media-but-advertising-isnt-off-the-table/
https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/tree/main/packages/bsky
The old design was built to scale to a few million users. The new backend is revised to handle ~hundreds of millions. They’ll releasing bits and pieces at a time.
while I agree, the reality of the situation is that when you get down to comparing feature to feature, open source solutions tend to be technically inferior to proprietary ones.
I use linux because I hate microsoft, not because it’s more feature complete than windows (it isn’t).
I use lemmy because I hate u/spez, not because it’s more feature complete than reddit (it isn’t).
I use blender because it’s free and it’s actually kinda great, if all free and open source software was like blender, then it would be a no-brainer to use FOSS all of the time, and it would be easy to convince the normies to do the same.
also also
I’m using linux mint, i have minor complaints about it, but nothing worse than what microsoft is currently doing with windows. It’s just different, and that bothers me. middle click paste is the bane of my existence, but other people swear by it. Just before I switched over, I learned about windows 10’s built in emoji keyboard, and I really liked that. A year later (literally last week) I discovered a program that does most of what the windows emoji thingy did, and I can manually edit a keybind for the function to accomplish amost the same thing. FOSS, yay, it’s free if you don’t value your time in currency amounts. FOSS could be so good if only it were good.
lol… “Feature complete” if you want terrible features.
i just want it to work without having to fix it
Yeah. Another Linux mint user here, and when it comes to “feature” differences with Windows it’s usually for the better. I describe it to people as the difference between an OS trying to fulfill the diverse needs of all the stakeholders in a mega corporation, versus an OS that was made to serve the needs of only the users.
For a normal mainstream user that pretty much just needs a web browser and maybe a local document/spreadsheet editor it is faster and stays out of the way.
For a power user that fiddles with the system like a lot of people on Lemmy probably are, you learn different ways to fix different issues on the two. Linux allows you the control to do what you want with your machine, and that also means you can do bad stuff. So there’s always a tradeoff.
For people somewhere in the middle, maybe a normal user who has niche hardware for their hobby, it’s a toss up. I’m sure Windows comes out ahead due to its popularity, which means that’s where the vendor puts their effort.
Yes. But there is nothing bluesky does that mastodon doesn’t. It’s a platform to write short text posts and have it viewed by other people. It’s not rocket science.
Never meet your heroes. If a scientist is human, they’re as fallible as any other. Just like some teachers aren’t there because they’re passionate. Some legitimately are bad if you ever had parent teacher conferences. Not passion nor intelligence saves you from making poor choices
Just because they are using Mastodon they are bad people? What the hell kind of take is that?
I’m just saying, because someone is a scientist absolutely does not absolve them of human fallibility. I just don’t like the take of “because scientist, therefore smart or wise” and that’s not true, they’re just (hopefully) educated and credible in their one specific field and nothing else. I wouldn’t blindly trust a scientist’s choice of social network. It makes no sense. I’d instead trust their education on their specific field.
Right but Mastodon is irritating to use, isn’t it? It has actual problems. I think it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend that it doesn’t have problems and therefore anyone not using it is being ignorant.
It’s a take that apparently requires a lack of reading comprehension on your part.
And absolute rudeness on yours.
I’m just a little sick of this attitude that everyone on here seems to have that everyone should be using Mastodon without consideration for the fact that it does have quite a large number of downsides. It’s ridiculous not to accept that fact and not to want to improve the platform so that the downside aren’t there and then people would use it.
You can’t berate people for not using the product you want them to use if the product you want them to use is annoying to use
Some of us have. There are a few science focused servers.
Most people who work as “scientists” aren’t actually scientists.
Define “Scientist”.