Talk:Bluesky

Official link for Bluesky?

When I googled, I found at least three results for Bluesky. Is there an official link? I found at least .app, and .social. The site at .com was apparently a different thing. Misty MH (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

bsky.social is the company page, while bsky.app is the social app itself. Baldemoto (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

TY. Misty MH (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

bsky.social is also the suffix for a user account (unless the user has their own domain). So John Doe will be using bsky.app as user @johndoe.bsky.social. MichielN (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Controversy on Bluesky decentralization

The article intro currently starts by saying that "Bluesky is a decentralized microblogging social media service". This "decentralized" adjective might require some additional qualifiers, or be removed from the intro: the decentralized character, in the strong sense of "without a center", is not currently materialized, as the infrastructure run by Bluesky Social PBC is clearly Bluesky's center. The theoretically decentralizable character has also been challenged. I'm out of my depth in this technical debate, but I think Wikipedia should keep unqualified affirmative adjectives to what as been demonstrated to be true, and present theoretical possibilities as what they are, to not fall on the side of promotional content. Maxlath (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. At the most we can say that it is aiming to become decentralised. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe my knowledge of the protocol may be useful here as I am well acquainted with the protocol's implementation and believe that Bluesky should still count under the banner of "decentralized". The AT Protocol has 3 main components: The personal data server (PDS), the Relay, and the AppView. PDSes are where user posts are stored and accessed. Relays are what index the network. AppViews are what we traditionally think of as "apps" such as Bluesky. Every single one of these has a component not run by Bluesky Social.There are at least 1,800 PDSes not run by Bluesky Social. This means that the content in these accounts is not under control of Bluesky Social - the relays merely index these sites across the decentralized network and aggregate them in the AppView. Because of how these interactions between users in different PDSes is structured, it requires collective databases of every event in the network to combine the data from multiple users into something that is presented to the Bluesky AppView and the client - which is a clear example of decentralization by design. There are independent relays that also index the entire network for use for independent AppViews. As for the Bluesky AppView - since Bluesky's API and lexicon is locked open due to the protocol, there are independent projects such as deck.blue, Graysky, Skeets, etc that also serve users content from relays (both served by Bluesky Social and by independent relay operators) without relying on Bluesky Social. Because Bluesky's API is "locked open" due to the protocol, anybody can build a Bluesky app. In short, every aspect of Bluesky - from the PDSes, to the relay, to the AppViews, to the clients, are meaningfully decentralized. The reason why most of the operation is still run by Bluesky Social PBC is because there is no *reason* to move out of their infrastructure, as people are happy with it. Should people have a need to move out of their infrastructure, the decentralized architecture is already there and well implemented to facilitate this. It's not a hypothetical or an "aim" - it is already existing. Baldemoto (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That being said, I believe that the current writing - where the platform is built on a decentralized protocol while not being described as decentralized itself - is a reasonable compromise for the time being. Should a new app that uses the Bluesky lexicon become widely used, I believe this issue should be revisited. Baldemoto (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

And yet you've just done the opposite? – Joe (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The edit for decentralization was not made by me - the implicit consensus stayed there after the addition of citations for some time, and my addition was an update to the description and additional citation. I did not revert the consensus itself. Baldemoto (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and I would like to add even more. Bluesky has a lot of opaque centralized systems embedded: The Direct message (DM) system, is completely closed and opaque, and runs on a centralized system fully controlled by Bluesky PBC. You can also add GIFs on Bluesky, but you can only do that through Tenor, a centralized website owned by Google. Antimundo (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The source mentioned below, by Christine Lemmer-Webber, is also crystal clear: "Bluesky and ATProto are not meaningfully decentralized". It also quotes Bluesky's own documentation as admitting "even though the majority of Bluesky services are currently operated by a single company". I think these views ought to be incorporated into the article to balance the at the moment uncritical repetition of Bluesky's own claims to be or aim to become "decentralized". – Joe (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Headquarters in Seattle? better source needed.

Anyone have good-quality sources that indicate where Bluesky is headquartered? A not-so-great source says Seattle, but better sources are needed. 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Noleander (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The LinkedIn page for the company does state it's headquartered in Seattle. However, I've yet to find a secondary source that has reported on this. We might have to wait for a confirmation from a secondary source on this one. Baldemoto (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just added three new ones. One is U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, The other is Dun & Bradstreet profile, and the last if you scroll all the way down in the Apple App Store webpage (which apple vetts pretty well before places can join the app store- it also has their full contact information. Hopefully these sources are good enough? CaribDigita (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Bluesky Social's founder

Currently, the page states that Bluesky was founded by Jack Dorsey. However, I dispute this assertion as relevant to the article. Jack did initiate the Bluesky project, however, I've yet to find a reliable source citing him as Bluesky Social's founder. I believe it's more relevant for information to be related to Bluesky Social, as all work relating to Bluesky or the AT Protocol is related to the company. Graber has stated in a previous interview that she was the founder of Bluesky Social, though, again, reputable secondary sources remain scarce. I'm not sure how to query more information from Delaware's records to clear up who exactly filed to incorporate the company. Baldemoto (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"BlueSky" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect BlueSky has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 18 § BlueSky until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 10:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Moderation Controversies

There seems to be no mention of a recent controversy on Bluesky regarding Jesse Singal, namely regarding moderation decisions on the platform, and actions of users on the platform.

Primary (?) source written by Jesse himself: "Bluesky Has a Death Threat Problem" https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem - this source seems to be factual, and contains screenshots from users on the platform - not sure if this is primary/secondary.

Another independent source, seemingly factual: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/jesse-singal-bluesky-death-threats/

Another source - this seems to be written by someone seemingly with an axe to grind, but confirms notability: https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/13/bluesky-is-at-a-crossroads-as-users-petition-to-ban-jesse-singal-over-anti-trans-views-harassment/

This seems like it should be worth adding - what would the best way of approaching this be? Quizwammer (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Singal controversy merits a mention in this article as it stands, but I just added a citation to an NBC News story that mentions it. Funcrunch (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

this did fuel a lot of anger, controversy, and distrust in the moderation team, so i'd say it possibly deserves a sentence or two in a paragraph discussing criticism by its users.

though i'd say jesse singal himself is not necessarily a good source when it comes to this, there is definitely a huge conflict of interest in him writing that, ofc. - avxktty ^(talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Bluesky user base is plummeting

Hi Everyone, I saw that this article is talking about rapid growth after the election. However, since the surge happened, the user base is plummeting, and is soon back to pre-election levels. Can someone address this and update the article? Official numbers from Bluesky is available here: https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats 80.98.151.90 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing evidence of "plummeting" DAUs on that chart. And regardless of what you or I think, there would need to be reliable sources indicating this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Similar spike-corrections happened in February, September and October. If I plotted pretty much any sort of trendline onto that graph it would be angled upward. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Free our feeds

Is this relevant? Or too early?

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Free-Our-Feeds-wants-to-save-Bluesky-and-social-networks-from-billionaires-10241574.html

https://freeourfeeds.com/ Fazhbr (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's too early, wait a couple months to see what they do next. LemurianPatriot (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Bluesky and researchers

Is this notable enough to be included? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00177-1 https://www.science.org/content/article/academic-bluesky-grows-researchers-find-strengths-and-shortcomings

Can include it in the style of "Bluesky has gained many users, including ... and researchers." ChopinChemist^Talk? 19:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion

Is it relevant? The opinion isn't about Bluesky itself but rather about perceived liberal bias. However, it doesn’t reference any specific Bluesky features or provide evidence to support the claims being made. It could be suggested to add this opinion in a new section "Controversies".

Parnell Palme McGuinness, a conservative opinion columnist of the Sydney Morning Herald, was critical of the platform, terming it: "a microblogging site for idealists, devoted to protecting them from the raging reality of divergent opinion in a democratic system", a "delicate biosphere of an alternative reality … where "reasonably mainstream opinions attract the ire of the moderators, and are soft-censored as 'intolerance'… not really information so much as a curation of comforting progressive axioms". 2A02:A03F:65F3:F501:B894:BDF9:DFA:A485 (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was out of place, too. Almost as if the whole section was written for that one quote. I wasn’t aware the opinion pieces were encyclopedic in nature, especially when quoted at such length. 2600:1700:F90:6950:6177:58E2:6C46:F97C (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

List of most-followed accounts

As all other social media platforms have such a page, Bluesky should too. Spectritus (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Source issue in History section

A tweet is cited at the top of the history section. Aren't social media platforms considered unreliable sources? Spectritus (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it really "owned" by Bluesky PBC?

In the intro, it states that Bluesky is owned by Bluesky PBC, but only the default website, default app, and default PDS are owned by Bluesky PBC. The actual Bluesky network (Bluesky lexicon as they exist on ATproto) is completely open. Is it really fair to say that Bluesky, as a whole, is owned by this one company? Knotbin (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd refer to here in regards to Lexicon ownership, which says that the authority that manages a lexicon's schema is whoever has DNS control over the Namespace ID (the app.bsky part). Third-parties can add additional fields, but it isn't recommended and implementations of ATproto are advised to drop unrecognized fields if it doesn't match the proper schema. So in my opinion, I would say that Bluesky as a whole is owned by one company. LemurianPatriot (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)