If you have millions of people on a social network, and you go looking for toxic shit there, you will find it.

Well, on Mastodon, you might not because by default it doesn't have a useful text search feature. If you're on a server running a modified version, or something else with decent text search, you might. My self-hosted server was on a relay that briefly pulled in content from a famously toxic server. At first, I didn't see it because I didn't follow those accounts, but later, I added an improved search feature and tried searching for some terms of abuse. I did find a few absolutely vile posts.

Bluesky has had a working search from early on. Turning off some of the default moderation filters and searching for terms of abuse does, in fact find people using terms of abuse.

Does the post strike anyone else as "off"?

Like why is this person giving a full elevator pitch of who they are before they drop the bomb of "bluesky is toxic"?

Two thoughts come to mind:

1. If it's there and you aren't having it shoved down your throat, then that's still a VAST improvement over Twitter, which has gone from shitty social media to blatant hate indoctrination platform.

and

2. Did you just now discover that most people are shitty? I always assumed most people figured that out at 13 or 14.

No because Bluesky has block lists so all that stuff is so easily filtered. It's honestly really lovely.

Critical mass of users on social media platforms.

Back on Usenet decades ago they called it the "Eternal September".

It used to be that every September, fresh University students would gain access to Usenet for the first time, and there would be a rough adjustment period where they don't yet know the ropes, the lingo, the etiquette, the unspoken rules, and the expectant decorum, etc. Then one year, home internet service providers made Usenet accessible to ANYONE who subscribed... And from that day forward, it was like September every day, all year round.

Now the general riffraff are flocking to bsky because even THEY see that Twitter is sinking. This surge of new users have brought all their bad habits with them. Bsky must adapt or it too will fall.

Haven't seen a single bit of toxic stuff yet, my feed is all cute art and photography.

A quick scroll of his account on Bluesky ( https://bsky.app/profile/urlyman.mastodon.social.ap.brid.gy ) makes it pretty clear why his Discover sucks. The algorithm on Bluesky sorta works like a mirror, you get out what you put in. My feed is all art posts and wholesome memes because I follow artists, creators, and comic pages, so it sounds like he's trained his algorithm to be full of political complaining and toxic people like him. He should probably look into the Mute Words feature and start blocking stuff he thinks is toxic!

This person is a liar and just wants the Mastodon pat on the back. For some reason people on the fediverse can’t just enjoy their platforms and work to make them better. They have to lie about Bluesky and Nostr. I’ve been on Bluesky since the beginning. I’ve seen significantly more toxic people and content on fedi than I’ve ever have on Bluesky. People are happy to be away from X, they’re trying to promote a positive and supportive culture. There’s tonnes of minorities on Bluesky

Dude needs to learn about blocklists if that's what his feed looks like. There definitely is a cesspool but it's pretty isolated.

Honestly I want to believe this but I’ve had 0 bigoted accounts ever come into my bluesky replies, when on twitter this would be a daily occurrence.

I’ve met one tankie, and blocked them, but that’s it, and I have 1.7k bluesky posts and 8k followers.

In my time in mastodon, I didn’t experience bigots either, but neither have I in bluesky, and I’m an easy target, I’m disabled and my face looks deformed, it’s my profile picture, while on twitter I’d get snide remarks every day, it’s never been the case on bluesky, and I had one mastodon user make a joke (but that’s just one user).

I moved over to Bluesky basically the minute I could get an invite, because I could see the writing on the wall for Twitter; and there is SOME toxicity for sure, but you control how much.

Bluesky has a completely chronological feed composed singularly of accounts you follow. If you don't follow shit-stirrers, you will not see any shit.

Having said that, they can still show up in the "comments" of skeets you'll see, but the block system is so effective, that they are not usually showing up anyways.

To me, that is the difference between Bluesky's moderation and other websites. Bluesky has very little official moderation, but has extremely powerful blocking tools (their blocks server connections between subskeet, there are curated block lists, atomic blocking, etc). If you subscribe to trusted and vetted block lists, you will probably never see a chud on Bluesky in your life. You do need to verify the trustworthiness of the list in advance, though...

just because the middle aged white guy with terrible opinions isn't catered to on platforms where the first users were ones fed up with middle aged white guys with terrible opinions, doesn't mean there's a problem, if anything it indicates federated social media is resistant to bullshit

Yes. It enforces a bubble by its very nature. There is no main feed, by default you see people you follow and posts they interact with. I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't go into a pub with racists, and xenophobes, so I shouldn't have to do it online.

Anyway, first thing I did was sign up for a couple of blocks lists, and what saw was awful people.

Also, if you look a the moderation settings, there is a lot of objectional content that is or can be hidden basic of topic flags. This is content that on any sane networks should be banned and the users suspended. But of Bluesky its just hidden from view.

It's basically a microcosm of the Internet. It's not the Good Place for sure, and anyone who thinks that is deluded.

When I looked at bsky it seemed to be about 60% pointing out stupid shit that Trumpists have recently said and done, and 30% self-congratulatory talk about how popular bluesky is this week.

Also, it’s so toxic yet he’s using the account still and bridged his fediverse account. If I encountered next level toxicity that’s not what I’d be doing

It's the eternal cycle:

• Small platform has quality experience because most users are genuine and engaged, and user base is too small to be "worth it" for corporations and trolls
• Platform grows slowly until it reaches tipping point of popularity and network effect
• The platform has explosive growth, drawing interest of corporations and trolls
• Corporations enshittify while trolls crank out misinformation and rage bait
• Users reach tipping point and leave large platform to smaller platforms that don't have corporate interests and trolls
• Repeat due to network effect

Sounds like just repeating an inherent truth to me? You can find toxicity anywhere on the internet that is not tightly regulated by a BDFL. That said, I would not adscribe any undue weight to this kind of statement. It's like saying sky is blue. Intentions don't matter, mass of users vs limited work of volunteer admins does.

Seen very little of it on either Bluesky or Mastodon to be honest. Maybe it’s the type of searches or activities followed.

I have seen an uptick in posts saying "block this maga/Nazi/etc" but I haven't personally directly seen any. I use the Following feed so I only see posts from the people I've specifically asked to.

the original post strikes me as shit stirring. I just opened blue sky for the first time and there was nothing "toxic" it was mostly landscape photos, memes, cat pics and news.

There is no real safe place. You need a platform that allows you to moderate it down to a place you can live with.

This is called "virtue signalling".

No.

The hell is masto? Mastocytosis? Mastopexy?

Nope. Not true.