Back

@hrefna biased polling.

@SoniEx2 k.

Also a fact that, in general, they are there and not here. So whether it is a "biased poll"—or if that bias is in any way meaningful—is not really relevant to the question at hand.

@hrefna since you seem to prefer long-form responses: the poll can answer the question of why scientists are on bluesky, but it cannot prove scientists are on bluesky, because it induces a selection bias by design.

yet it's being passed off as "scientists are on bluesky".

do you not see how this can be used to manipulate you?

what's the point of science if you can't point out the flaws

@SoniEx2

I am posting this because it fits with a phenomenon I've already observed and that has been observed by multiple others, and becuase while the methodology may introduce bias, I do not see how those biases matter here.

Virtually every scientist I followed from the initial phases of COVID is on BlueSky. Virtually none are on mastodon any longer.

That is the topic. Saying that they didn't "prove their case" or arguing methodology is missing the point by about a hundred miles

I am not looking for a debate on polling methodology for informal surveys of readership conducted by Nature.

Strike 2.

@hrefna we do not feel safe around someone who would fall for disinformation (or, in this case, manufactured consent, but isn't that just self-fulfilling disinformation), so, good riddance?

it's still a shame it has to be like this tho.

@Bigou …and what does that have to do with literally anything I'm talking about?