Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

bsky.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 123 posts

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#61

Post by dom96 »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #48
dom96 wrote: post #43

> 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…

> Are there any plans to allow third parties to provide verification services or is it always only going to be journalistic and educational institutions? 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.

Yes, anyone can. But unless Bluesky treats it as a trusted verifier then it doesn’t have much practical use.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#62

Post by egorfine »

direwolf20 wrote: post #19

They publish this because the EU requires it, not out of the goodness of their hearts.

They also perform age checks because various local laws require it, not because they are evil.

They also perform age checks because they are evil and complicit with obviously detrimental local laws, not because they want to protect the children.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#64

Post by egorfine »

vladms wrote: post #3

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.

> Good they moderate.

I'm not sure about that. I'd rather decide for myself what I want to read and what I do not. I'd love to not delegate this important decision to corporate overlords.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#65

Post by TimorousBestie »

dom96 wrote: post #61
TimorousBestie wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there any plans to allow third parties to provide verification services or is it always only going to be journalistic and educational institutions? 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.

Yes, anyone can. But unless Bluesky treats it as a trusted verifier then it doesn’t have much practical use.

I guess I don’t appreciate the distinction between verification and an account labeler.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#66

Post by dmos62 »

Diti wrote: post #40

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…

You're complaining about the banning of illustrations featuring furries being raped? That's what non-consentual means here? I must be misreading this.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#67

Post by dsr_ »

pfraze wrote: post #18
uwemaurer wrote: post #11

Here are some independent stats: https://bluefacts.app/bluesky-user-growth

FWIW these are based entirely on the firehose, which means it doesn't count lurkers. Our logged in DAU tends to be double the DAU of record-creators

So the tracking pixels say almost everyone with a GMail address opened your email!

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#68

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #47
dom96 wrote: post #43

> 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…

> So far it’s feeling like a “cool club” with little rhyme or reason with regards to certain verification decisions. 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.

Regardless, it was weird to try to convert that into a "I paid" check-mark.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#69

Post by bakugo »

kgwxd wrote: post #33
swed420 wrote: post #17

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]

Labeling everyone you don't agree with as an "asshole" is the sort of thing that usually leads to echo chambers forming.

Re: Bluesky 2025 Transparency Report

#70

Post by gary_0 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
Diti wrote: post #40

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…

> Their ban of “non-consensual sexual imagery” made several acquaintances of mine – furry art illustrators – move to harmful communities on questionable Mastodon servers. 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 aspec…

> quite explicit furry art, is very common on bluesky

Now there's an understatement. It's bloody impossible to get rid of. People here are sneering at all the political content but they're ignoring the curvaceous elephant in the room. I think maybe bsky has improved things now, but a while back their adult content filters were not up to the task. When I first made an account I almost gave up on it because until I got all the right filter words set up it was nothing but weird porn whac-a-mole (actually that's probably a poor choice of words...)

Post reply on HN