41–50 of 123 posts
“toxicity and inflammatory” does a lot of heavy lifting for Blueskys moderation team. i find it’s pretty toxic, in a militant way… that doesn’t get moderated of course. That’s “free expression” when it’s about topics blueskyers all agree on. waits to be called a nazi
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> likely because the site was just one big echo chamber of far left American politics around that time. The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. At least not in a self-aware sense. Maybe you meant to say liberal, to which I'd agree. That's not to say there isn't a "left" or "far left" on Bluesky, but there's no way it's a majority. I agree echo chambers are a problem there, which i…
[flagged]
It would be nice to see some more transparency around the decisions of whether an account gets verified or not. So far it’s feeling like a “cool club” with little rhyme or reason with regards to certain verification decisions.
Related to that is also the need to add more trusted verifiers. Are there any plans to allow third parties to provide verification services or is it always only going to be journalistic and educational institutions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the moderation strategy indicates that?
Try participating in discussions with a politically disapproved position and see how fast you're shadow-banned. And no, I'm not talking about "1939 Germany" views.
In 2024, Bluesky wrote about their "Stackable Approach to Moderation": https://bsky.social/about/blog/03-12-2024-stackable-moderati... Now in 2026, their transparency report says nothing about stackable moderation or moderation services. I guess nobody is using them, at least not in significant enough volumes that it would have a meaningful effect on the at least not enough for them to have a meaningful effect on the…
It’s spread out over subgroups and niches. I imagine the biggest independent moderation service is blacksky’s, and they’re not exactly best friends with bluesky.
I use about five different moderation services, and a handful of independent blocklists.
> It's fine, I guess. It's just not meaningfully decentralized.
It’s better than the situation on X.
Good they moderate. Most interesting is that they report a 60% increase user increase, up to 41M users. Considering how bad I heard "the other network" is now I wonder why so few. I have a look at Bluesky from time to time and there is (for me ofc) as much info/interesting stuff as I was getting from the other one before the acquisition.
there actually isn’t much good content on the platform in my experience. it’s just people raging about trump and whatever brand they’re looking to try and cancel next. it’s so far from the greatness of the original twitter. no tech community or content.
I dunno. It probably depends on what you’re looking for.
> By the end of 2025, we had verified 4,327 accounts total: 3,567 verified directly by Bluesky and 777 verified by our network of 21 Trusted Verifiers. It would be nice to see some more transparency around the decisions of whether an account gets verified or not. So far it’s feeling like a “cool club” with little rhyme or reason with regards to certain verification decisions. Related to that is also the need to add m…
That's how Twitter started, and when the policy changed, the "cool club" members threw public tantrums (some of which still seethe to this day).
It's all very high-school cafeteria clique to me.
> By the end of 2025, we had verified 4,327 accounts total: 3,567 verified directly by Bluesky and 777 verified by our network of 21 Trusted Verifiers. It would be nice to see some more transparency around the decisions of whether an account gets verified or not. So far it’s feeling like a “cool club” with little rhyme or reason with regards to certain verification decisions. Related to that is also the need to add m…
Anyone can put together a moderation service that labels accounts that they’ve vetted or blacklisted. It wouldn’t be that taxing to host one, but the labor to maintain it is a different story.
Their ban of “non-consensual sexual imagery” made several acquaintances of mine – furry art illustrators – move to harmful communities on questionable Mastodon servers. I’m growing tired of those bans on legal content that isn’t inherently harmful (we are talking about fictional humanized animals here) but considered “icky” by platforms and payment processors. So I don’t care if the AT protocol is technologically sup…
Furry art, including quite explicit furry art, is very common on bluesky and doesn’t seem be especially restricted by policy. I mean, unless they also happen to be depicting nonconsensual sexual interactions, an orthogonal concern to the furry aspect.
> I’m growing tired of those bans on legal content that isn’t inherently harmful (we are talking about fictional humanized animals here) but considered “icky” by platforms and payment processors.
Well, you are free to avail yourself of the forums that lack those policies. Now, I know you’ve complained that they are “harmful”, but... Maybe there is a reason that other forums choose to put bans in place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> likely because the site was just one big echo chamber of far left American politics around that time. The US does not have a "far left" in any significant numbers, and never has. At least not in a self-aware sense. Maybe you meant to say liberal, to which I'd agree. That's not to say there isn't a "left" or "far left" on Bluesky, but there's no way it's a majority. I agree echo chambers are a problem there, which i…
Meanwhile my facebook feed is nothing but clickbait engagement with local nazis. It's such a hard right echo chamber now, it makes me sick. Clear evidence of multiple international bot accounts flooding groups with propaganda every 30 minutes. It's a flood. There's really a problem that needs to be solved here. I really think anonymous or phony posting needs to stop. It's not helpful here. All it does is amplify fals…
There is hope, but it requires enough people to care and act accordingly: