Bluesky Opens Up

from the the-skies-are-blue dept

Bluesky is now open to anyone without an invite. And a bunch of other exciting things are coming soon.

As many of you know, I’ve been pretty excited about where Bluesky is going as a social media offering, not just because of the people who have been using it (who have mostly been great, making it a fun place to hang out these days), but because of the concepts behind it.

Bluesky was originally seeded by Jack Dorsey in response to his reading my Protocols, Not Platforms paper. The project moved along (somewhat slowly) for a few years. While Dorsey funded it, and the idea was that Twitter would eventually adopt the protocol, it was created as a wholly independent company, which initially had a contract with Twitter. The whole concept was finally picking up steam, just as Elon bought Twitter and cancelled the company’s relationship with Bluesky.

From there, the company quickly pivoted to release a reference app of its own, to give people a sense of how you could build a social media network that wasn’t awful and wasn’t confusing. But, because of the rush to set up their own network, and the numerous features it didn’t yet have ready (e.g., in the early days there was no “block” feature at all), it was setup as a closed beta, where you needed an invite to use the system.

Even with that invite system, Bluesky grew to over 3.2 million users (not all of whom have stuck around, but the network keeps growing). Over the past year, Bluesky has built out a number of new features, both ones to reach parity with what’s expected of most social networks, as well as some unique (and important) ones.

For example, the company has added some (still early) features that give users much more control over their experience: composable moderation and algorithmic choice. Composable moderation lets users set some of their own preferences for what they want to encounter on social media, rather than leaving it entirely up to a central provider. Some people are more willing to see sexual content, for example.

But, the algorithmic choice is perhaps even more powerful. Currently, people talk a lot about “the algorithm” and now most social networks give you one single algorithm of what they think you’ll want to see. There is often a debate among people about “what’s better: a chronological feed or the algorithmically generated feed” from the company. But that’s always been thinking too small.

With Bluesky’s algorithmic choice, anyone can make or share their own algorithms and users can choose what algorithms they want to use. In my Bluesky, for example, I have a few different algorithms that I can choose to recommend interesting stuff to me. One of them, developed by an outside developer (i.e., not Bluesky), Skygaze, is a “For You” feed that… is actually good? Unlike centralized social media, Skygaze’s goal with its feed is not to improve engagement numbers for Bluesky.

I also have feeds showing me “quiet posters” (calling attention to posts from users who don’t post all that often) or posts that are “popular with friends.” I have a few different topic-focused algorithms as well, including one highlighting breaking stories from journalists, and others highlighting posts from folks interested in tech law and policy.

In other words, rather than letting Bluesky curate my experience (or leaving it up to the whims of a chronological feed), I get to curate the experience myself, with help for anyone else who is creating and releasing their own feed algorithms.

And all of that is about to get even better. Because Bluesky also announced that they’re opening up their moderation system as well, to enable a similar sort of feature for moderation:

In the coming weeks, we’re excited to release the labeling services which will allow users to stack more options on top of their existing moderation preferences. This will allow other organizations and people to run their own moderation services that can account for industry-specific knowledge or specific cultural norms, among other preferences.

One potential use case for labeling is fact-checking. For example, a fact-checking organization can run a labeling service and mark posts as “partially false,” “misleading,” or other categories. Then, users who trust this organization can subscribe to their labels. As the user scrolls through posts in the app, any labels that the fact-checking organization publishes will be visible on the post itself. This helps in the effective distribution of the fact-check and keeps users better informed.

I expect that we’ll begin to see a lot of innovation there as well.

In addition, the company has said that it is finally rolling out its long awaited federation features. While Bluesky and its underlying ATProtocol was always designed to be a federated network, to date, the only real way to use Bluesky was to rely on Bluesky’s servers. There are some amazing third party clients (Deck.blue is an astoundingly great Tweetdeck-like multi-column client), but they’re still just showing you what’s on Bluesky’s servers.

But that’s changing:

This month, we’ll be rolling out an experimental early version of “federation,” or the feature that makes the network so open and customizable. On Bluesky, you’ll have the freedom to choose (and the right to leave) instead of being held to the whims of private companies or black box algorithms. And wherever you go, your friends and relationships can go with you.

I know that a lot of people hear “federation” and worry that it will be confusing and complex, as it often feels on something like Mastodon (though, Mastodon has put a lot of effort into making that experience better). But Bluesky is building from the ground up with a plan to make the federation aspect as seamless as possible.

All of this is pretty exciting. Yesterday, I spoke to Will Oremus at the Washington Post as he was working on an article about Bluesky opening up, and I said something to him (which didn’t make his article) but I think is important. I mentioned that I’ve always believed that there were two ways to make a “protocols” approach to social media work: (1) convince a big company to move away from a centralized system or (2) have someone use a protocol based system to build something that was just, fundamentally, at its core better.

Both approaches have challenges to succeed. But I think it’s fascinating that Bluesky started as (1), but has very much moved to (2) (and, of course, it’s notable that I never included “have a narcissist billionaire ruin one major platform that people kinda liked” as a third option for how this might work).

It’s still a long way to go to see if Bluesky succeeds, and there are oh so many ways it could go wrong. But the inclusion of composable moderation and algorithmic feeds already gives me a way better experience than any other social media platform, and it does so not in the service of any billionaire, but rather in service of me, the user. And that is incredibly encouraging as a start.

And, given the open nature of ATProtocol, it also means that if Bluesky fucks it up, and doesn’t actually continue to build in this direction, others have the ability to make it better for them (and for everyone).

To celebrate opening up, Bluesky teamed up with artist Davis BIckford to create a lovely comic explaining why Bluesky is different, and why it matters. You can see the whole thing in Bluesky’s post on opening up, but here’s just a snippet.

Image

I know lots of people like to crap on social media. And I’ve heard a bunch of people insist that Bluesky is too late to the party, or that Threads will kill it or some-such. And, hey, that may be true. But right now, it’s a place that offers a fantastic user experience, which puts you in control more than any other. And, once federation opens up you don’t even have to worry about it being in service to a single company or a single billionaire.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: bluesky

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Bluesky Opens Up”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
115 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

How’s that working out?

Mastodon is still an operational protocol that is being developed and improved, and plenty of Masto instances are available for right-wing shitbirds like you. (They’re almost always blocked off from the larger Fediverse for being shitpits, but that’s important right now.) While Masto has its own issues, it’s not going away any time soon.

I’m sorry that Bluesky is going to make it that much easier for people to block you and ignore your posts, but hey, go ahead and say those people are engaging in “censorship” for doing that. An empty-ass argument like that won’t get you far here, but you’re still free to make it. 😁

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re:

While Masto has its own issues, it’s not going away any time soon.

Well, yeah it is. Already has. It’s moment has already passed.

As in, it’s not going anywhere. It might grow, very slowly, but never in a way that will make it matter. This was obvious when Masnick was writing all those “Mastodon is really taking off guys!” posts, but he’s a perpetual gaslighter. It was already dead.

So is Bluesky.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I mean, usenet is still going.

You can have a network with your 5 friends and use it forever, if you want.

But mastodon is not taking off. It is never gonna be culturally relevant.

You can view that as “gaslighting” if you want, I don’t care. It’s just an opinion, at least I’m not lying to you about things that actually happened, like Masnick does.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

But mastodon is not taking off. It is never gonna be culturally relevant.

Which would matter if anyone had claimed any of those things. You’re arguing against points that you’ve created in your head.

at least I’m not lying to you about things that actually happened

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wheeze wheeze

You’re unintentionally hilarious sometimes, Matty.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I’m kind of confused how this person manages to gain income. I’m sort of concluding they are an independently wealthy manchild with a personality disorder, or else financed by one. Nothing else would explain why they waste so much time trolling here when they could, like, have a job, or play video games, or learn a new language, or all the wonderful things still available in life which they choose to ignore and do this instead. Like… Why?? You’re wasting way more of your time and resources than anyone else’s…no one here will be persuaded, and meanwhile, it’s gotta be hours and hours of your life you’ll never get back…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

Very well for people who choose to use it. There’s a distinct lack of idiots demanding that each Mastodon instance be forced to platform racist and homophobic morons, for example, and a lack of people who think that popularity is a valid substitution for a personality.

We’ll see how BlueSky copes with morons who think that freedom of speech means a guaranteed audience or that the targets of hate can’t use their speech to tell bigots to GTFO, but so far users of either platform are way less pathetic than the trolls here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think you may discover that “existing in public” is not the same thing as “being accepted by the public”.

Yes, I’m well aware that trans people face an astounding(ly depressing) amount of harassment and violence for being who they are. What’s your point, besides your latent desire to openly support the mass murder of trans people?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

My point is that censorship of social media to prevent reality-based viewpoints from being stated is going to be undermined by the looney-toons nature of the people expressing their “pride”. Which will be my delight and your dismay.

How is Bluesky being paid for their efforts, by the way?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Considering that you like to call me a N​a​z​i, I wouldn’t go around invoking Godwin with such abandon. But you do you. You might be astonished to learn that your invocation of internet memes isn’t actually going to affect what I say.

“Wokie” is a racial slur like “niggardly” is a racial slur, that is, not at all except in the minds of people who like to screech racism at every opportunity. What a bunch of malarkie! (I’m using it now because I saw you yelling at Bennet for using it, and finding new ways that you are wrong fills my Bingo card.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I invoke Godwin’s Second Law and institute a corollary: Anyone who uses any variant of the derogatory “woke” (e.g., “wokies”) is a complete dumbass.

See, this is funny cuz Godwin’s law would invalidate basically all of leftist (i.e. wokie) commentary and also, no, you don’t get to just “institute a corollary” and and attempt to invalidate anyone who uses a particular cutting turn of of phrase you don’t like, you absolute loser. (also wokie)

(b) how close to an actual racial slur that word is?

WHAT RACIAL SLUR?!? I’ve asked you at least twice, you haven’t answered, and no, even if you came up a vaguely plausible answer that wouldn’t be a good reason to discontinue the perfectly serviceable term “wokie”. It’s OK that you don’t like it, you’re not supposed to, it refers to you. Just the same I can’t think of any particular racial slur it’s supposed to sound like.

Are you just taking race baiting to it’s logical conclusion, where there IS no slur, you’re just making it up? Is there a “slur”, but it’s incredibly obscure and lame, and you’re afraid we’ll just laugh at you if we know what you’re alluding to? (betting on that one). I am dying to know what dumbass slur you think “wokie” sounds like IN the implaisuble case that you really think this is code for some code, that of course is obvious to you but not me, that would just reinforce the whole idea that wokies are the real racists.

Still not gonna stop using the term “wokie”, it’s perfectly descriptive. Sorry, not sorry.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

This is a tweet by Goodwin in 2022:
Anyone who uses ‘woke’ as a pejorative will turn out to be a fuckhead.

So fuckhead, why do you think you know better about Goodwin’s law than Goodwin himself?

The answer to that question is that you are a fuckhead, fuckhead. A particularly stupid fuckhead at that, but a fuckhead like you can never understand the depth of your own stupidity.

Now, piss off fuckhead.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

Re: Re: Re:8

So fuckhead, why do you think you know better about Goodwin’s law than Goodwin himself?

Well, for starters it’s “Godwin” not “Goodwin”, so I definitely have a better grasp on it than you. Secondly not real sure you can be an “expert” on an adage.

Secondly, as these days basically ANY “woke” person calls ANYONE who disagrees with him some variety of “nazi” I think the whole idea has completely run it’s course, you fucking wokie.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Can you define the derogatory “woke” in clear and objective terms, such that the word becomes a word with a concrete defintion to which we can hold you instead of being a snarl word that has no such definition and can therefore mean anything you want in a given argument or discussion?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Ooh, sealioning.

“W​o​k​e” is a term encompassing a constellation of false and inconsistent left-wing, beliefs. Included, just off the top of my head, are:

1) Gatekeeping of art – Art may only be produced by culturally appropriate people. Artists attempting to work outside of the approved bounds must be shunned and their art destroyed. This includes actors, writers, and visual artists.

2) G​e​n​d​e​r i​d​e​o​l​o​g​y – People can be a s​e​x different from their b​o​d​i​e​s and people must be allowed to force their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them.

3) Racial myths – The United States was founded in order to perpetuate slavery, and B​l​a​c​k people to this day must never be held accountable for their own failures. All blame must accrue to white people, who through their very existence cause those failures.

4) Freedom, merit, and equality are evil – Only the cant of w​o​k​e i​d​e​o​l​o​g​y may be spoken. Members of favored victim groups must be given positions ahead of members of other groups. People must never me evaluated for their capabilities in a way that would demonstrate that members of the favored victim groups perform worse than others.

5) Truth and quality do not exist – Facts, science, and quality are artifacts of power dynamics. Truth and facts are whatever the w​o​k​e i​d​e​o​l​o​g​u​e​s say they are. Quality of a work is evaluated by how well it adheres to w​o​k​e political orthodoxy.

6) Scum over citizens – Criminals who prey on citizens, especially those from favored victim groups, must not be punished for their crimes. They should not be arrested, if arrested should not be forced to post bail, should not be held in jail until trial, even if convicted should not be incarcerated, should not be executed, and should have their criminal history expunged. Crazed, drug-addled, stinking, possibly dangerous bums must be allowed to sleep and defecate on city streets and must not be removed.

7) Cancel culture – People who attempt to speak against w​o​k​e i​d​e​o​l​o​g​y must be silenced and removed from their positions. Such speech must be censored from social media and from other places that would make it available. Speakers must be hounded and heckled so that people who might want to hear them will not be able to so so.

8) Jews are evil – Jews are a former victim group who have had the temerity to succeed in business, the arts, science, and academia, just a few decades after Europe murdered so many of them. As such, they act as a reproach to the w​o​k​e’s favored victim groups, being omnipresent and a reminder of the failure of those groups. Jews have a nation to call their own, and rather than run it as a universalist non-nationalist state, dare to declare it a Jewish nation. The Jewish state has a robust army and responds to attacks with overwhelming force rather than immediately seeking non-combat resolution.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

None of what you said presents a clear, coherent, and altogether objective definition of the dergatory usage of “woke”. By listing off all these different categories of “wokeness”, you can make apply the word “woke” to virtually anything that sits outside your personal beliefs. A significant number of the positions you attribute to “woke” people are positions that few, if any, actual people actually hold (and are relatively unpopular besides). Compare your attempt to define the derogatory “woke” to definitions of the word “bigot”, which can cover any number of hateful ideologies (e.g., racism, antisemitism, homophobia) but remains grounded in the notion that those ideologies are built around an unreasonable belief in the inherent inferiority or worthlessness of a certain group of people. Hell, “bigot” can even be qualified with the type of bigotry being expressed (e.g., “homophobic bigotry”), which is nigh impossible with your attempt to define the derogatory “woke”.

Your attempt to define that word has failed by any reasonable measure. As you use it, “woke” remains a snarl word that you can twist to mean anything you want as a way of serving whatever argument you’re trying to present. You’re free to keep using “woke” that way, but trust me when I say that your arguments will only be taken seriously by the kind of people who also use that word in that way.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

Wokies don’t care about truth and arguments, or they wouldn’t be wokies. If you take “woke” as a snarl, that’s fine with me. That’s how I mean it to be heard. You’re not satisfied with what I sad? Too bad. It’s not going to stop me from using the word, no matter how much you sealion.

It does remain the case that the stereotypical wokie believes all of the things I listed. You, if you so choose, can say which of those beliefs you reject. I doubt that I’ll believe you, though.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

That’s how I mean it to be heard.

Thank you for admitting that you prefer to use the derogatory “woke” in a context where it can have any meaning imaginable and therefore no meaning whatsoever. The credibility of your arguments will suffer for the admission, but at least you admit the truth.

It does remain the case that the stereotypical wokie believes all of the things I listed.

You may be able to find individual examples of people who believe some of the things you’ve listed. But I highly doubt you’ll find someone who believes, to the letter, every one of the positions that you attribute to “woke” people. Your “stereotype” isn’t a stereotype, but a mishmash of exaggerations and outright lies about positions held by people who don’t subscribe to right-wing ideologies on race, religion, economics, and social issues.

You say that “woke” people believe “facts, science, and quality are artifacts of power dynamics”. But conservatives/right-wingers are more likely to view facts and science that disagree with their religious beliefs as “woke” than are liberals/progressives/left-wingers. (I would wager that groups such as atheists and humanists are largely left-wing precisely because of the value they place on facts and science.) For example: Being an atheist, if I were to tell a conservative Christian that the Jesus in the actual Bible preached a radical doctrine that talked about the acceptance of marginalized people, that Christian would probably call me “woke” despite my having accurately described Jesus’s ideology.

Therein lies the problem with how you use “woke”: Even if I mention factually accurate information, you can and will call me “woke” should that information conflict with your personal beliefs. If one argument fails or is proven to be fallacious on its face, you can pivot to another and keep calling me “woke” the whole time. For you, “woke” is an escape hatch that lets you avoid introspection and the interrogation of your beliefs so you can keep telling me that I support positions for which I have never once said or implied any support. As I said: Your admission to using the derogatory “woke” as a meaningless snarl word is appreciated⁠—because that admission means everyone can see your trick for what it is and act accordingly.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14

Note that I usually qualify my use of “w​o​k​e” by context; I will talk about w​o​k​e g​e​n​d​e​r i​d​e​o​l​o​g​y or w​o​k​e r​a​c​e​ i​d​e​o​l​o​g​y (or critical r​a​c​e theory), isolating the w​o​k​e​n​e​s​s to being dangerously and evilly wrong about a specific topic out of the constellation.

In any case, I do not expect that you will change your beliefs to be correct. My goal is to not let errors stand unchallenged, and to frustrate you that your errors do not go unchallenged.

Oh, by the way, speaking of people forcing their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them, there’s this fun story:
https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/incident-at-nyc-lesbian-bar-cubbyhole-sparks-debate-about-who-belongs-there

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

I usually qualify my use of “w​o​k​e” by context

That still allows you an “out” by letting you claim that a specific view on a specific subject is “woke” without needing to admit “woke” is a subjective label of personal opinion instead of an objective label of fact. Rather than embrace a discussion on the merits of a specific view, you use “woke” to deride the view, say the person who holds that view is a piece of shit, and move on from the discussion⁠—all without having to interrogate your own beliefs, including your beliefs about what other people believe.

As an example: You might view my compassion for the homeless as “woke” and think I believe, as you stated above, that “[c]razed, drug-addled, stinking, possibly dangerous bums must be allowed to sleep and defecate on city streets and must not be removed”. But my compassion for the homeless feeds my belief that society at large should get homeless people off the street⁠—in ways that can help those people find some sort of housing and a job that lets them get back into society. Yes, homelessness is a problem. But treating every homeless person as if they’re all drug-addicted murderers is not how society will solve that problem.

I do not expect that you will change your beliefs to be correct

You’re not a god, which means you don’t get to decide whose beliefs are objectively “correct” facts. Your belief that trans people deserve to be endlessly harassed (and possibly assaulted) by cis people for the “crime” of “being trans in public” is correct to you. I view that belief not as “incorrect”, but as “morally heinous” without making a judgment on any objective sense of correctness. (I’m not a god, either.)

That besides: I can and will change my beliefs when I am given a good reason to do so. Talking to me about trans people in the most negative, hurtful, you-really-hate-these-people terms will not change my mind. I’ve heard those arguments (and their anti-gay brethren) before, and they all boil down to a sense of entitlement about what other people can do with their own bodies. Who would I be to demand some stranger conform to my idea of who they should be and how they should look because of some personal mental discomfort? (Rhetorical question; I’d be a major league asshole.)

speaking of people forcing their way into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them

The story to which you linked has nothing to do with transgender people; I refuse to address it in that context.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

“See, this is funny cuz Godwin’s law would invalidate basically all of leftist (i.e. wokie) commentary”

Nah, he already said that calling actual Nazis what they are is fine. It was a commentary on how silly it was that Hitler was invoked regularly on random conversations, not about how some people actually want a fascist regime to exterminate those they feel are inferior.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That’s fine. I’m generally intending to use BlueSky for reading, not writing – sort of like watching the zoo animals in a simulation of their natural habitat. As I pointed out, writing anything there is dangerous because it makes you liable for BlueSky’s legal fees, which I have no interest in paying.

That you intend to use every facility at your disposal to silence voices who tell you truths you find unpleasant is no surprise either, of course.

Anonymous Coward says:

Indemnity

Here’s a delightful portion of their terms of service:

  1. Indemnity.
    Summary: If someone brings a legal claim against us based on your actions on Bluesky Social, you are responsible for our defense in, and the consequences of, that claim.

You will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Bluesky and its affiliates, and their respective officers, directors, employees, and agents (“Bluesky Parties”), from and against any claims, disputes, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, and costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees arising out of or in any way connected with (a) your access to or use of Bluesky Social, (b) your User Content, or (c) your violation of these Terms. Bluesky may assume the exclusive control and defense of any matter for which you have a duty to indemnify Bluesky and, if we do, you agree to cooperate with our defense of those claims.

Good thing no one ever reads these, right?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Re-read the summary:

If someone brings a legal claim against us based on your actions on Bluesky Social, you are responsible for our defense in, and the consequences of, that claim.

Now let’s break this down with some slightly more casual speech:

If someone brings a legal claim against us

“If someone sues us…”

based on your actions on Bluesky Social,

“…because of some shit you did here…”

you are responsible for our defense in, and the consequences of, that claim.

“…you’ll be the one defending your shit, not us.”

And that’s how it should be. For what reason should Bluesky pay to defend itself against some shit that a user of Bluesky did, especially when Section 230 already immunizes Bluesky against legal liability for third-party speech?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

The owners can do whatever they want. But why would a user risk having to pay their legal bills when someone decides to sue them because they didn’t like what the user said? As a regular reader of TechDirt, albeit an idiotic one, you are surely aware of meritless lawsuits brought to discourage criticism and publicity. It would be foolish in the extreme for a user to risk indeterminate amounts of money in order to post a comment, when they would then not be in control of what lawyers to hire.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

why would a user risk having to pay their legal bills when someone decides to sue them because they didn’t like what the user said?

Because they want to use Bluesky and don’t expect to get sued by some asshole with a grudge and a lawyer willing to sign off on a SLAPP.

you are surely aware of meritless lawsuits brought to discourage criticism and publicity

I just used the term “SLAPP”, so you tell me.

It would be foolish in the extreme for a user to risk indeterminate amounts of money in order to post a comment, when they would then not be in control of what lawyers to hire.

Dude, pretty much every large-scale social media service has something like this in their TOS or whatever. Besides, if someone does decide to sue Bluesky over third-party speech, Bluesky’s legal team could immediately invoke 230 and have the lawsuit dismissed⁠—at which point the filer of that lawsuit could turn their attention to the party actually responsible for that speech (the third-party user), in which case the user would still be responsible for any legal fees for their side of the matter.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Besides, if someone does decide to sue Bluesky over third-party speech, Bluesky’s legal team could immediately invoke 230 and have the lawsuit dismissed⁠

Which the user then gets to pay for based on the wording of the ToS.

FFS, man. I know for a fact that you’re not this thick. Maybe it’s time to take a breather.

MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

FFS, man. I know for a fact that you’re not this thick.

You’re the one who doesn’t seem to understand. This clause is not unique or uncommon. You have likely agreed to this clause for tens or even hundreds of other services you may have used over the years. Look at the TOS for other social media platforms and do a keyword search for “indemnify.”

By get histrionic about this, you’re just revealing your own alarming ignorance.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

There isn’t. I have a Bluesky account, but I treat it like my Twitter account: It has a username otherwise unconnected to my regular Internet activity, it’s locked and unused, and I only have it so I can view posts that I would otherwise be unable to see. Any “fanboyism” that you want to attribute to me is misplaced; my only active social media account is on Masto, and I barely do anything with that but boost other people’s stuff.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You say that, but you offer no proof that I’m “enamored” with Bluesky in any way. So I have a burner account, so what? I have one of those on Twitter, and I’ll shittalk that shitpit all the live-long day. That besides: Whether Bluesky succeeds or fails at being “the next Twitter” or “the Twitter-killer” or whatever is not a concern of mine. Neither is Bluesky’s level of content moderation. Like, if it succeeds as a platform and doesn’t become a Nazi bar, great, but I’m not really all that “enamored” with any form of social media these days. And if Bluesky ends up becoming a Nazi bar, I can always delete my burner account and lose nothing beyond access to content I can’t see without an account (which isn’t that big a loss anyway).

I don’t know what gave you the idea that I’m effectively dryhumping the Bluesky servers, but I’m willing to disabuse you of the notion if you’ll tell me what you need me to say for that to happen. Otherwise: I don’t give a shit about Bluesky beyond mild curiosity for where it goes in the future, and I’ll drop it hard and fast if it starts becoming a Nazi bar.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Bluesky is saying that if somebody sues them, they want you to pay for their lawyers.

You’re either forgetting or intentionally leaving out the important part: they only want you to do that if the suit against them is actually your fault.

In other words, if someone sues Bluesky for something that you did, you’re on the hook for it. Sounds fair enough to me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

BlueSky says that when they are being asked to face consequences, they’re going to make you pay. With Section 230, you are not involved unless people sue you. You are not liable for third-party drive-by legal bills. You get to pick your own lawyer, choose to fight or to settle, and make all your own decisions. If BlueSky can hire the lawyers and make you pay for them, what is to stop them from hiring the most expensive lawyers they can find, or hiring their friends and jacking up the fees?

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If BlueSky can hire the lawyers and make you pay for them

That’s the thing you don’t seem to understand: they can’t. You’re making a situation up in your head and arguing against that, instead of arguing against the actual point: that you’re on the hook for your speech on their platform.
So if Bluesky is sued, their legal team will determine whether or not the suit actually has to do with them or with you. If it actually has to do with you, you must lawyer up.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Now we move the goalposts. The system is what it is, and people do what they do. That’s a given. It doesn’t change the interpretation of the TOS.

Again: If anyone is getting sued over what you did, good suit or bad, it should be on you. It certainly is not the provider’s fault whatsoever. Not sure how you fail to understand this. Seems like a reverse deep-pockets argument.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

That’s your choice. In this case “opens up” just means “you no longer need a private invitation”, and you’re free to refuse. It’s no more than Twitter requested and there are other platforms if you prefer them. But, if you want to use a free platform and it’s not a niche community funded project, expect some form of payment,

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...