back to article Bluesky keeps growing, and so do its problems

It's undoubtedly a good time to be upstart social media network Bluesky given its rapid growth in the wake of the US presidential election, but questions of moderation and compliance matters are growing along with the influx of humans seeking bluer pastures.  According to a stat page developed by Bluesky backend dev Eric …

  1. beast666 Silver badge

    Bluesky is the worst sort of echo chamber.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sounds like somebody wanted to yell at normal people like they used to do on Twitter and keeps getting blocked on Bluesky.

      The idea of an "echo chamber" is weird rhetorical nonsense typically used by the worst possible people. If you're chatting with your friends in the pub and some rando none of you have ever met in your lives starts yelling at you all about how cows are a conspiracy you tell them to piss off. The fact that Bluesky allows you to do that (and to create lists of annoying people so you never have to see them in the first place) is one of the things that makes it a vast improvement over Twitter.

      Every time somebody whinges about an echo chamber, you can guarantee they're the weird annoying guy who wants to shout over everybody's normal conversations about how cows are a conspiracy.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        >how cows are a conspiracy

        What about cows ? I haven't heard anything about cows - what is the MMB hiding from us ?

    2. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

      Twitter was hidding posts from people I follow and was pushing more toxic content. I was spendig less time reading on there. Bluesky is a much nicer place and I read more there than I ever did on Twitter.

      1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

        Yeah, ironically the people whining about Bluesky being an echo chamber are exactly the people who don't think Twitter is a toxic environment, which is clearly algorithmically promoting one political viewpoint over others, and actively hiding content from dissenters. You know, pretty much a spot-on definition of an echo-chamber.

        So, the real criticism these people have, is that Bluesky isn't a far-right echo chamber. The fact that a plurality of views and opinions is available there, and you can follow who you like, and see their content, instead of Elmo's actually makes it a lot more open, but right-wing rhetoric never let facts get in its way before.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Twitter was hidding posts from people I follow

        Not to mention Twitter decrementing counts for Likes and Retweets for stuff Elon does't approve of.

        1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

          Re: Twitter was hidding posts from people I follow

          ...and mysteriously removing followers from people he doesn't like. My wife has had to re-follow several people due to this "bug".

    3. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      FAIL

      Adding to the other better replies, note that your Bluesky interaction is what you make it - not what Musks insecurity dictates.

      Those who want to debate with other opinions will do so, and you'll find that in the majority of cases, that will be their desire, or at least, not something they'll avoid.

      However, if you're a crazy angry zealot, unable of rational debate, then expect to be blocked much more efficiently, making it *look* like an echo chamber to you.

      Sucks for you, I guess.

      1. werdsmith Silver badge

        It is what you make it.

        I looked at it and once I had blocked all the US politics, people snarking at “the right”, rubbish art and people patting each other on the backs an congratulating each other on leaving X, my feed was blank.

        1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge
          FAIL

          "I blocked everything I hate, and now I can't see anything at all," is maybe more of an indication of your own proclivities towards hating things.

          1. werdsmith Silver badge

            If you even tried to make sense.

            Mine was a facetious comment designed to illustrate the nature of most of the content I found when I looked.

            I don’t hate any of it, it’s just an observation.

            Keep your hair on.

            1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

              The thing is, your comment didn't come across as facetious, it came across as one of many similar posts with people complaining that the content on Bluesky isn't like that of Twitter, which heavily over-promotes misogyny, transphobia, and a certain kind of right-wing authoritarian populist political belief system.

              It's only natural to find people posting introductory posts with things like "came here from The Other Place. Nice to not see all the hate speech", that sort of thing.

              I've not actually seen very much of what might be described as radical, or hard-left content, not even in meme form (you know, "seize the means of production", that sort of thing), despite the fact that I follow several people who are of that political bent (I don't typically follow those people for their political beliefs, either).

              This probably indicates that most people want social media that isn't constantly deluged with exhausting political diatribe, because the vast majority of people (the ones not shouting their political beliefs from the rooftops) are pretty much centrists. You know, the sort of people who don't want to live in either a commune and live a life of subsistence farming, or be a corporate slave in a fascist dictatorship (extreme positions chosen for emphasis only, please don't write in). Believe it or not, those loudly-shouted political opinions that are becoming very commonplace not only on Twitter, but also on Meta's offerings, are extremist. The very problem with Twitter is that Musk has chosen to promote those, because they align with his own beliefs. This is probably a very good illustration of how being vastly rich separates people from the reality of the common every-day experience everyone else shares. Most people are of the opinion that we should be generally nice to one another, and try not to do things that cause problems for other people, as long as they do the same. It's the constant promotion of culture war and divisive political talking points that drives people away from this neutral position. Like what you get on Twitter.

              1. werdsmith Silver badge

                Too long to read. And I don’t really give a shit anyway. I can’t even be bothered to guess what you wrote.

                You take all this too seriously.

                As I said, keep your hair on, calm down you nutter.

                1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge
                  Holmes

                  You "don't give a shit" so much that you bothered to compose a reply. Interesting priorities you have there.

                  1. werdsmith Silver badge

                    Ahh that tired meaningless old response.

                    <shrug>

                    1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge
                      Trollface

                      Still not giving a shit, eh?

    4. DS999 Silver badge

      Sounds like someone is upset that there will soon be no liberals left to troll, and Twitter will be just another Gab or Truth Social - a place where MAGA nuts have to resort to turning on each other and attacking the weak members of the herd who are insufficiently toxic as being RINOs.

    5. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

      Having not bothered to go there, I do not know. However, SOME evidence seems to indicate this is so.

      For example, I have seen a couple of videos where someone signs up for B.S. (Blue Sky), then enters his first post with something frequently said on X, such as "there are two biological sexes", or "man made climate change is a hoax" (or similar).

      Within 30 seconds an algorithm of some kind flat-out bans the user. [I cannot imagine what they'd do for a PRONOUN violation]

      So if you like "safe" environments in which nobody argues with your politics and/or opinions, B.S. may be for you.

      (Personally I call that *BORING*)

      1. Wang Cores

        Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

        So is this a tacit admission your politics have no substance beyond "whatever that other guy wants, fuck that?" You need a target to attack?

        1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

          Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

          You need a target to attack?

          You have that bass-ackwards. There is much scientific debate to be had wrt subjects like 'climate change'. Yet in an echo chamber, that debate cannot happen because 'the science is settled' and anyone daring to challenge the consensus gets attacked as a 'denier', or just banned. Science traditionally relies on evidence rather than 'consensus'. The same is also true for another old, well established science like biology, and biological sex, which is traditionally defined by chromsomes and genetics rather than feelings, or hair dyes.

          Funnily enough, the Supreme Court in the UK is currently pondering the sex/gender question at the moment because they're different things, and there are currently conflicts in existing UK legislation.

          1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

            Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

            There is much scientific debate to be had wrt subjects like 'climate change'.

            Not about the existence of anthropogenic climate change, there isn't. If you think there is not scientific consensus on this, then you either have no clue at all about how the scientific method works, or you are just trolling on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

            I mean, we've all seen your posting history, and I think most people will conclude it's both.

            There is the fact, of course, that the term "scientific debate" is a massive red flag, because that is not how science works. Discussion, sure, but the scientific method doesn't have some concept of whoever shouts the loudest is the winner, like you seem to think there is. it is an incremental process of discovery and publication, not some opinion to be discredited. For reference, the process of discovery about climate change started in the nineteenth century, and the fundamental principles discovered by John Tyndall in 1861 remain unchanged.

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

              Not about the existence of anthropogenic climate change, there isn't.

              Sure there is. If you think not, then please explain the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature. The scientific method is supposed, after all to be based on empiricism.

              ..or you are just trolling on behalf of the fossil fuel industry.

              And your evidence for this is.. where? Equally I could argue that you're just trolling on behalf of the 'rewables' industry. Or perhaps even worse, you're actually trolling on behalf of Musk. After all-

              https://x.com/nationalgriduk/status/1862462972624294015

              The National Grid proudly announcing spaffing £200m or so on 600MWh's worth of Tesla batteries to 'store power' for Orsted's latest subsidy farm.. Which is rated at 2.9GW, but the batteries are only rated at 300MW. So maybe could 'store power' for around 10mins.. But that's not the actual purpose as the 500 tonnes of TNTe is to function more as a smoothing capacitor due to the vagueries of wind. And even though Orsted has created the problem, you can be sure that they're not paying for the 'solution'. NG just adds that to our electrcity bills. But Elon thanks you for your service..

              Discussion, sure, but the scientific method doesn't have some concept of whoever shouts the loudest is the winner,

              Except this is exactly how climate 'science' works. Twitter would ban 'deniers' who challenged the 'consensus', now Blueski is doing exactly the same thing. And around 60,000 people recently returned from a mass debate in Baku around climate 'science', and why we should pay climate reparations of $300bn a year..

              For reference, the process of discovery about climate change started in the nineteenth century, and the fundamental principles discovered by John Tyndall in 1861 remain unchanged.

              Actually they've changed quite considerably. But again this is climate 'science' for you. Reality deniers pluck their cherries from sites like SkS who pre-digest their thoughts for them.

              1. Wang Cores

                Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

                Here's the straight dope from MIT: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

                But we already know you know. Perhaps you'll try to pretend to misunderstand, or misdirect to some variant of "woke universities." Or perhaps you'll leave the conversation in a huff, blustering indignantly about it being your opinion.

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

                  Here's the straight dope from MIT

                  Nope, that's a simple explainer. I asked for something more specific-

                  If you think not, then please explain the exact relationship between CO2 and temperature.

                  Or perhaps you'll leave the conversation in a huff, blustering indignantly about it being your opinion.

                  Not my style. I leave that sort of thing to the reality deniers who generally hurl their strawmen and resort to ad homs.. Which isn't how science works. Science should be able to quantify stuff like TΔCO2, especially given stuff like COP committing developed nations to spending $300bn a year fighting the War on CO2. This is on top of the UK's £22bn trying to capture terroristic CO2 and bury it. Or the several trillion being spent on 'Net Zero'.

                  Which is why quantifying stuff is important. So supposed the UK spends £2tn (a conservative estimate) to reduce UK CO2 emissions by 81% compared to an entirely arbitrary baseline, which might result in a temperature reduction of maybe 0.002C, which can't be measured.. Especially not by the Met Office because most of their weather stations are only reliable to around +/-5C. But then arbitrary baselines are rife in climate 'science'. So the classic 'temperature anomaly' taken from a baseline of 1850, which just happened to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age.

                  Hence reality deniers attempts to deny the LIA, MWP and past evidence that our current climate isn't anomalous at all, and the climate is actually pretty insensitive to CO2. But that's where climate 'science' drifts blissfully into homeopathy territory, where lower amounts of CO2 somehow had greater effects. But there's still trillions to be made from fighting the phony War on Warmth, even though tilting at windmills is crippling the economies of countries that supped deep on the Green kool-aid.

                  And of course it's all aided and abetted by ignoranuses like the Bbc-

                  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg725xpxleo

                  Workers have fitted a reactor into the first nuclear power station to be built in Britain for 30 years.

                  ...“The last nuclear reactor that was built was finished in 1991," Ian Henderson, head of Framatome UK.

                  Which is only partially true. 6 have been built and finished since 2001, but those were built and fitted by Rolls Royce into our Astute submarines.. And now RR is getting closer to a civil version of those reactors that could be built far faster and cheaper than EDF has managed with the full-fat version at Hinkley Point. Even though the Bbc actually appears to have softened its stance on nuclear, the 'renewables' scumbags really hate the idea of SMRs derailing their extremely profitable gravy train..

                  But you can't discuss that kind of stuff on Blueski because it treads on the twin unicorns of 'climate change' and 'renewables'.

      2. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

        "Onoes! I signed up to Bluesky, posted some hate speech and got banned."

        System working as designed. Ticket closed.

      3. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

        Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

        For example, I have seen a couple of videos where someone signs up for B.S. (Blue Sky), then enters his first post with something frequently said on X, such as "there are two biological sexes", or "man made climate change is a hoax" (or similar).

        Perhaps the problem here, is that this sort of divisive language is not only allowed, but seemingly promoted on Twitter?

        Both things are, by the way, absolute bollocks. Ask anyone with a medical degree*, or anyone who has studied basic physics or chemistry about why. It's exhausting having to continuously correct this sort of bullshit, and the cynical amongst us would posit that this is exactly why idiots keep repeating it.

        *well, almost anyone. You can probably cross people like the discredited fraudster Andrew Wakefield off the list.

      4. Arthur the cat Silver badge

        Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

        Having not bothered to go there, I do not know.

        Having admitted you don't know about it, the next 101 words seem somewhat otiose. Possibly even bombastic.

        1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: B.S. worst kind of echo chamber

          "Otiose."

          That's a good word, I'll gladly add it to my lexicon.

    6. Alan Bourke

      Aw diddums

      Is your anonymous hating getting you blocked?

  2. Apprentice Human

    Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

    I left the toxic hell of X back in 2018. I joined BlueSky in the big November rush.

    I've been enjoying it for following people like Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate economist) without the trolls.

    However, I'm well aware that this is only temporary, and I'll bail when (rather than if) it degenerates.

    So I do not consider it an echo chamber, at least not yet, while the trolls are few in numbers.

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

      Like one of those quaint, picturesque towns before all the other tourists discover it.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

        Like one of those quaint, picturesque towns before all the other tourists discover it.

        Ah, nostalgia. So Blueski was heavily patterned on the Twitter that was..

        "This resulted in over-enforcement and temporary suspensions for multiple users," the Bluesky safety team said

        .. and always will be. Didn't Dorsey learn anything?

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

          Better to moderate a little too much rather than not enough. If you let the trolls shout down actual conversation no one will want to be there. You just think it is bad because you're one of the ones who wants to do the shouting.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

            Does your version of moderate actually mean not having listening to points of view that you don't agree with. If so, then that's what the OP mentioned about It being an echo chamber.

            1. Dave@Home

              Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

              That's the point, it's up to me to choose who I listen to, not you

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                That's the point, it's up to me to choose who I listen to, not you

                But surely you have the opposable thumbs the $deity gave you? So if you see something you consider objectionable, or a poster you consider objectionable.. Can't you just use one of your thumbs to ignore them?

                So you're rather missing the point. As long as you have an ignore option, then you can exercise your choice. If you're expecting modbots to ban posters, or posts you might find objectionable, you're not exercising your own choice, and denying other people their choices.

                Blueski's also probably just delaying the inevitable as well given at some point, it'll need to do the things Dorsey never seemed able to do, ie make money. As (if) the platform grows, so will the costs of the mod squad and someone will need to pay for this. So there'll be the inevitable influx of ads & sponsored posts.

            2. Dan 55 Silver badge

              Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

              And I'm sure all those parties which didn't want you crashing them were never any good anyway.

            3. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

              Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

              Bingo. Not having to listen to the same, repeated, shouty, hate speech over, and over, and over again. Being able to ignore all that shit, and read the posts that contain interesting content instead.

              Are you one of those people who thinks "freeze peach" is the freedom to shout over everybody else and demand to be heard? That's not how it works, cupcake.

            4. DS999 Silver badge

              Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

              I think they should only moderate stuff like threats of violence, or things that are obviously designed to lead to threats of violence like doxxing people. The problem is that a lot of right wingers want to stretch credulity with their excuses for calls to violence, so even if someone says something like "someone needs needs to kill so-and-so" or "so-and-so lives at the following address with her two young children, I sure hope nothing happens to them" they'll call it restriction on free speech if those posts are deleted or in the case of repeated instances kicked off the platform.

              Your problem is that free speech is not yours alone, it also extends to the service. Unless you think all social media should be required to carry porn unless it is illegal due to someone underage being involved, you've already accepted that the service has the right to free speech. Because if I have total free speech on Facebook because you've decided it is a town square, why can't I post pictures of naked people on it, or naked people fucking? Maybe you're OK with that, but even if so might have a problem with pictures of two men fucking?

              The real problem with social media in general, and Twitter in particular, is that you can't control what your feed presents you. I'd love it if Facebook would only show stuff from your friends or pages you follow. I'd love the choice to get just that, in a chronological feed. Then I wouldn't have to "listen to points to view I don't agree with" unless I chose to because they're a friend or a page I follow. What I definitely don't want is what Twitter does now thanks to Musk, showing you a constant stream of promoted right wing idiocy without any way to opt out. And worst of all, you see his drivel without any way to opt out. At least Zuckerberg isn't such a narcissist asshole and doesn't force me to see what he posts just because he controls the platform.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                I think they should only moderate stuff like threats of violence, or things that are obviously designed to lead to threats of violence like doxxing people.

                Agreed. If it's clearly illegal, then it should be moderated. If it's simply an opinion, then debate should be allowed.. Although probably still with some moderation. It's something that has been done before, ie it's how Usenet used to work. Challenge is determining who should have those moderation powers. It's the kind of thing that could be done, ie people could apply to moderate, and assuming they can demonstrate subject matter expertise, let them get on with it. It would still run the risk of gatekeeping, but a quorum and appeal process could, in theory prevent abuse.

                Because if I have total free speech on Facebook because you've decided it is a town square, why can't I post pictures of naked people on it, or naked people fucking? Maybe you're OK with that, but even if so might have a problem with pictures of two men fucking?

                It isn't that I (or anyone else) has decided it's a town square, it's currently what the law (in the US) requires. So FaceMelta can argue they're not liable for content due to their s.230 protection. They are but a common carrier and not responsible for the content people post.. Except if they do start censoring, then that opens a can of worms (in the US) because they should then lose that protection. Outside the US, other laws may (and do) apply. So a country may have laws that images or video of gay sex is illegal, and if FaceMelta wants to do business in that country, they'd have to block it. Or try to.

                People in the US may find that kind of content objectionable, even though it's not illegal. So then demand content is removed, posters banned and de-platformed, just as they demand with other subjects they might find objectionable. Like maybe who talk about politics, science, or whether the 'Trump Dance' is better than people who do, do, do, do the Biden Shuffle.

                What I definitely don't want is what Twitter does now thanks to Musk, showing you a constant stream of promoted right wing idiocy without any way to opt out.

                Is that true? Not being a Twitter/X user, I thought users had the ability to block/ignore posters they don't want. If not, it should because if someone wants to see the thoughts of chairman Musk, they could just go look at his stream of consciousness. But then this is also going to be a challenge for Blueski, if they want to make money and do the usual 'social media' thing of inserting unblockable ads and promoted/sponsored content.

                1. DS999 Silver badge

                  Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                  It isn't that I (or anyone else) has decided it's a town square, it's currently what the law (in the US) requires

                  Where does the law say that? The only way you can claim that is to claim they are a common carrier. Republicans have railed against considering ISPs to be common carriers and enforcing net neutrality. But you want to basically enforce net neutrality on Facebook? Talk about hypocrisy!

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                    Where does the law say that? The only way you can claim that is to claim they are a common carrier.

                    Perhaps you should educate yourself a little before piling in? I mentioned the law-

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

                    In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by its users. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

                    El Reg has also published numerous articles on s.230 and the implications if that's repealed or amended.

                    1. DS999 Silver badge

                      Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                      Yes section 230 exists, but it does not say that those providers can't moderate (or by your definition, "censor") however they choose. Getting immunity because some nutjob posts how they want to kill a political figure doesn't mean they have to leave that up to get that immunity. They are also immune from consequences for their decision to delete it and kick the nutjob off their platform.

                      Sorry but you're just wrong, again. Thanks for playing.

                      FWIW I think section 230 should be repealed. It would require platforms to moderate such threats a lot more closely - including the ones where nutjobs congregate like Gab. Because failing to do so would mean that if someone ever follows through on a threat they could held liable in court if sued for not reporting that post to authorities, leaving it there so others read it and decided to follow through for them, etc.

                      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                        Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                        FWIW I think section 230 should be repealed. It would require platforms to moderate such threats a lot more closely - including the ones where nutjobs congregate like Gab.

                        Or even Blueski. See for example-

                        https://www.zerohedge.com/political/taylor-lorenz-says-we-want-these-executives-dead-after-health-insurance-ceo-murdered

                        "And people wonder why we want these executives dead," Lorenz wrote on Bluesky in response to Thompson's murder.

                        Lorenz has always been.. somewhat controversial and got kicked off Twitter for her 'reporting'. I don't think she's been kicked off Blueski for making those death threats, but should she be? Thompson's murder can't be justified, nor would suggesting other health insurance execs be murdered, but this incident has generated an awful lot of noise on 'social media'. Sure, there are a lot of problems with US healthcare, but murder is not the answer. That's going to be something Kennedy may try to resolve lawfully during the next US government.

                        But so will s.230. There's already been some noise about removing that protection due to heavy handed or biased moderation, but at the same time, the law requires 'social' media platforms to remove illegal content. That's always been the challenge, ie defining illegal content and balancing that against the fundamental right to freedom of expression granted by the UN, ECHR etc. Lorenz's comments are arguably 'hate speech', but rational discussion about things like politics, health care reforms, climate change etc shouldn't be.

                        Then there are actual First Amendment issues, where US government leaned on 'social' media companies to take down & ban people for discussing Covid, the Hunter Biden laptop. Or in Germany, a man was arrested for calling one of their politicians an imbecile, or in the UK, there's been a rather heavy handed approach to comments made on 'social' media. Opinions, providing they're lawful should be protected free speech.

              2. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

                Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

                Worth noting that Bluesky does allow pornographic images and videos to be posted, but both expects users to flag their own posts as such, and seems to have some reasonably good algorithms for identifying and flagging them. Images/videos flagged as adult content are hidden by default, and I believe there is a setting for whether you see such posts at all, which is off by default (and unavailable to users under 18).

                In other words, you can post a dick pic to BlueSky if you want, but nobody is going to see it unless they actively choose to do so. You're likely to get put onto block lists, and not get many followers either, apart from people who like seeing dick pics. I should think that if you post something like that in response to someone else's post, that hasn't explicitly (natch) asked for it, you'd get banned.

    2. sstroud

      Re: Enjoy BlueSky while we can.

      Try blocklist subscriptions.. you can filter out MAGA, NAZIS, content scrapers, churnlism and more.

      https://blueskydirectory.com/lists

  3. Andy Non Silver badge

    Bluesky seems halfway decent... for the moment

    I've had an account on Bluesky for a few months to see what is new in the worlds of science and astronomy. Not had additional crap stuffed into the feed.

    When I tried X some months ago, I also selected science and astronomy as my interests but got a feed with 95% unwanted and irrelevant crap, posts from Musk, tons on American politics, people spewing hate about various other people, crazy conspiracy theories, TV soaps, so called celebrities and endless American sport none of which I have any interest in and bizarrely a whole load of posts by a group of people in Nigeria discussing what they were cooking for evening meal. I deleted my X account less than 24 hours after creating it. It was a just a fire-hose of unfiltered sewage.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Bluesky seems halfway decent... for the moment

      In my experience , the Twitter/X "For You" feed cycles through various states of craziness, from being actually based on my interaction to whatever Elon likes to totally random. Seriously, there was a period where it was all weather chasing people. Yeah, I saw Twister when it first came out, but WTF?

      1. Fred Dibnah

        Re: Bluesky seems halfway decent... for the moment

        I honestly don’t understand why people complaining about all the crap in their ‘For You’ feed on Twitter haven’t noticed the ‘Following’ tab.

        1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

          Re: Bluesky seems halfway decent... for the moment

          ...or, indeed, removed the "Discover" feed, if they don't want to see it. It's only there by default, you're not forced to follow it, unlike X.

    2. TheFifth

      Re: Bluesky seems halfway decent... for the moment

      This is what I found after Musk took over.

      My Twitter feed used to be relevant to what I follow (retro and modern tech, development, music, comedy). I didn't follow politics and I never saw any. I used to enjoy reading through my Twitter feed in bed each morning and some of the recommendations I received were actually interesting. I never saw any of the hateful side of Twitter because it used to be possible to avoid it if you didn't follow anything contentious.

      Within a few days of Musk taking over my feed was full of right wing US politicians (MTG and the like), tonnes of US politics and of course Musk himself. I'm in the UK, why would I care about the latest nonsense MTG has just spouted? It went from a fun morning read to a depressing slog through irrelevant, hateful crap to find something I actually follow. I left within a few weeks.

      I joined Mastodon, which I do like, although I miss some of the larger accounts I used to follow. If it's possible to only see what I actually want and any recommendations are actually relevant, maybe I'll give BlueSky a go.

      I think that's what a lot of these people screeching about 'echo chambers' are missing. Not all of us want to see a feed full of political arguments or even polite political discussions. We don't want any politics. Some of us just want to read through fun posts about topics we are actually interested in without politics polluting our feed. I used to be able to do that with Twitter, but the second Musk took over, that became impossible.

  4. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

    Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

    It's a similar model to Twitter, lots of money provided by dodgy VC firms that will want their pound of flesh in 3-5 years. tick tock.

    It's staggeringly obvious the general public want an easy to use service driven by one large company with no subscription cost. Moderation, ethics, and content are all Someone Else's Problem. You can take that attitude, but the money and effort has to come from somewhere.

    It'll be fine. For three years. Then the VCs will extract money, it'll go public, fall apart, and the public will move on to the next platform. CIX. Myspace. Livejournal. Facebook. Increasingly Twitter. All largely in the past after they lost critical mass.

    Heaven forfend everyone could donate towards Mastodon and work out the issues with that. Nope, we all have to use corporate services where third party clients aren't permitted under threat of your account being banned (Discord. Otherwise how could they sell pointless graphical stuff for your chat?) or the APIs being withdrawn (Twitter, Facebook. Both were far more open in the beginning, and then they were restricted)

    1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

      Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

      It is NOT a similar model to Twitter - it's closer to that of Mastodon.

      If they do enshitify, users can simply move to another server, preserving all their data.

      https://bsky.social/about/faq

      https://docs.bsky.app/docs/advanced-guides/federation-architecture

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

        There's a rumour that Bluesky is decentralised, but it's only a rumour. You can't take your profile anywhere.

        1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

          Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

          You can't take your profile anywhere.

          Funny, that's exactly what a lot of the third party developers have done. It's not for the non-technical at the moment, but it's certainly possible. That's one of the features where the AT protocol wins over ActivityPub. (There are pros and cons for both protocols, says he in an attempt to avoid a stupid religious argument.)

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge

            Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

            The only other service which uses AT Protocol is Flipboard, everything else has to go through a bridge to the Fediverse.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

          https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds

          Yes you can

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

        In theory, Threads is supposed to have ActivityPub integration and be part of the Fediverse. In practice, it is not, partly because of Meta's feet-dragging, but also because other ActivityPub admins are concerned that Meta could be making a 3E play on ActivityPub.

        In theory, email is a protocol that doesn't care about providers, and you can migrate from one service to another with no issues. In practice, if you're not Google or Microsoft you have to contend with the fact that those providers can literally blackhole any of your messages because of spam-prevention rules that, incidentally, allow MailChimp and other large mass-mailing providers to operate.

        In theory, Mastodon is an ActivityPub implementation and you should be able to migrate to different servers or ActivityPub implementations if you choose, but in practice, Mastodon and mastodon.social have such outsize influence that it impacts the moderation decisions of other ActivityPub server moderators.

        In theory, having that documentation and process to allow people to migrate should be enough to convince that a particular protocol is resistant to enshittification. In practice... well, there's more than one way to enshittify.

      3. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

        Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

        It's a large social media service funded by venture capital. It's the same as Twitter.

        Regardless of what Bluesky may or may not allow at the moment, that doesn't mean it will persist in the future.

        Twitter used to allow third party clients. Now it doesn't.

        Facebook had an open messaging platform. Now it isn't.

        Twitter used to be a more pleasant place to interact with people, and had improved moderation. Now it's not.

        Bluesky users are not paying for the service, and they're not in control. They are the product. Don't kid yourself this is any different than before.

      4. Irongut Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

        The suggestion that Bluesky is open, decentralised, built on a standard protocol or in any way like Mastodon is in fact total BS.

        1. Wang Cores

          Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

          Yeah anyone deluding themselves that bluesky isn't just Twitter, Remastered is a fool.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

            Maybe you missed the memo: https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

      I think a fundamental problem with these platforms is that desire to centralise all users into a single platform, and to make things as “discoverable” as possible.

      This isn't just going to be a problem with Bluesky and other corporate platforms — for example, Gagron's stewardship of Mastodon has often been called to question, especially his reluctance to okay moderation, security and quality-of-life features that have been requested (and in some cases, submitted as PRs), as well as the dominance of Mastodon's primary server, mastodon.social, which is often seen as “too big to block” but is target for waves and waves of AI bots, disinfo agents, and scammers.

      I think fundamentally we're going to need to accept that resilience, user safety and discoverability might actually be mutually incompatible goals and advances in one will warrant trade-offs in another.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

        "i think fundamentally we're going to need to accept that resilience, user safety and discoverability might actually be mutually incompatible goals and advances in one will warrant trade-offs in another."

        If you want a safe place, don't use Social Media, it's that simple.

        The Bible and it's Tower of Babel story were analagous.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

          CGP Grey: This Video Will Make You Angry (6:16)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Of course it's getting worse, and it will worsen further

      > will go public, fall apart.

      Solution: A new law to make content reshareable to 3rd party aggregators. No more walled gardens for social networks.

      The aggregators must respect copyrights and share monetization. Owners will decide which aggregators to pick from. Aggregators will compete with better filtering, content monitoring, distribution models, user base etc.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I will not be opening a Bluesky account due to the prevelance of CSA material and other adjacent advocates and content.

    Personally I've found Twitter to have become a much nicer place to wander around of late. I attribute this to all the most tedious individuals whose content motivates one to go "oh I do wish they would f**k off" having quite literally f**cked off. Leaving the way clear for the normal people to take back over.

    I've seen no evidence of anyone politicising the platform. But then I generally don't hang around in political spaces.

    1. IGotOut Silver badge

      If you didn't post anon Elon, you could use the troll icon.

    2. Jamie Jones Silver badge
      FAIL

      That has to be the most pathetic attempt at trolling I've ever seen!

      Trolling is not simply writing a bunch of things that are the opposite of actuality. You need to have some semblance of reasonableness, and make a provocative comment about a contentious subject if you want to rile people up.

      0/10 - Must try harder.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Man: I came here for a good trolling.

        Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for trolling.

        Man: Trolling isn't just contradiction.

        Mr. Vibrating: It can be.

        Man: No it can't. An trolling is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

        Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.

        Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

        Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I troll you, I must take up a contrary position.

        Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

    3. blu3b3rry
      FAIL

      CSA material? I didn't realise there were that many customer service advisors on Bsky, but if you're happy staying on Twitter then so what?

    4. Wang Cores

      "Conservative" partisans DO seem to have an uncanny ability to find CSAM very quickly...

    5. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

      If you haven't got an account, how do you know about the prevalence of CSA material?

      What I actually suspect, is that you did open an account, and went looking for illegal material. Because I've seen none of it whatsoever.

      You do know that this would constitute a criminal offence on your part, don't you? Just entering those search terms is enough to convict you.

  6. KalF
    Thumb Up

    better ui and feed

    I left twitter as soon as the UI started to degrade and the feed turned to junk. I think those that stayed have generally become used to the worse experience and there's a trepidation that all their hard won social media points will be lost if they move. But when I occasionally log in now, I can't believe how poor the UX has become. I personally prefer Mastodon's architecture and UX - validating your github and web content is useful. but Bluesky has way more ppl and doesnt feel too far behind Mastodon, it even has a primitive form of validation by domain.

    1. Naich

      Re: better ui and feed

      Don't mention the "M" word. It's got enough people on it now that it's actually quite good, but the hords of arseholes haven't discovered it yet.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    New York Times having 55.2 million followers

    > despite The New York Times having 55.2 million followers on X and only 679,300 on Bluesky, engagement on the latter was significantly higher.

    51 million bots?

    1. Elongated Muskrat Silver badge

      Re: New York Times having 55.2 million followers

      Probably more like 55.1M

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: New York Times having 55.2 million followers

      Or Maybe Elon suppresses the reach of enemies like the New York Times on his platform.

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like