New Anti-Toxicity Features on Bluesky

https://bsky.social/about/blog/08-28-2024-anti-toxicity-features

by runarberg • 2 years ago

105 178 2 years ago

richbell5• 2 years ago

This helps you maintain control over a thread you started, ideally limiting dog-piling and other forms of harassment. On the other hand, quote posts are often used to correct misinformation too. To address this, we’re leaning into labeling services and hoping to integrate a Community Notes-like feature in the future.

I'm confused. It seems like they're acknowledging why this is a bad idea yet are proceeding with it?

If you don't want people to be able to reply critically to a post, why not have a private profile or not post it in the first place?

josefresco• 2 years ago

It is confusing language but basically they're saying "we're giving you this ability, but will be adding a new feature to fix this unfortunate side effect".

I think it will cause a shift to "screenshots of posts" as is done on Twitter/X when the retweeter does not want to @ / mention the original author.

Jare3• 2 years ago

That's perfectly fine. Screenshots as posts deter 90% (my guess) of people from going through the trouble of finding the original post/author, but still allow dedicated people to do that. It reduces the ability to trivially post mindless shit to someone on a whim. I totally believe that this approach can significantly increase the signal/noise ratio, without allowing anyone to silence anyone else arbitrarily.

roblabla3• 2 years ago

They're acknowledging that it has some downsides, that they think they can resolve through other features that they'll develop later.

If you don't want people to be able to reply critically to a post, why not have a private profile or not post it in the first place?

The problem isn't people replying critically, it's people being assholes on the internet, leveraging their follower base to harass someone. This feature gives tool to the bluesky posters to protect themselves against this form of harassment.

Hence why they're going with it despite the downsides: it's a necessary feature for people to protect themselves against harassment.

richbell5• 2 years ago

The problem isn't people replying critically, it's people being assholes on the internet... it's a necessary feature for people to protect themselves against harassment.

The problem is that "harassmemt" is a nebulous term. Many people inappropriately (in my opinion) claim any sort of dissenting voices are "harassment".

malwrar• 2 years ago

I think they’re intending to address something like THE X GROUP DID Y THING TO THE Z GROUP (which we will assume to be false) by allowing for factual corrections via “community notes” and “labels” that I assume the T&S team plans to control. Depending on how the specifics of this future plan manifest, I think this could be useful for quelling legitimate adversarial or genuinely uninformed and harmful misinformation. I still worry about the bias and transparency of whoever controls these labels, and the general potential of these features to enable the creation of echo chambers, but least this will all be transparent and observable via the developer API so factual investigation and reporting can be done on how this actually plays out in practice. I hate censorship and the general cowardice of people who would abuse these features to stifle legitimate dissent, but I think these features are a good compromise between that and the opposite real problem of malicious/harmful legitimate misinformation.

newsclues• 2 years ago

Sounds like they are making a tradeoff of creating community bubbles or silos in order to limit unwanted interactions.

Seems like safe spaces online, where people can be happy but perhaps they will be sharing opinions and information that are incorrect, but they won't be unhappy from people they disagree with providing the facts.

anonfordays2• 2 years ago

If you don't want people to be able to reply critically to a post, why not have a private profile or not post it in the first place?

Exactly. Someone will post something abhorrent, critical replies will be removed, supportive replies will stay. It will make echo chambers worse than they ever have been. Then again, that may be exactly what the users want.

skrbjc2• 2 years ago

This is a key criticism of reddit, and everyone knows how much of an echo chamber reddit is

PaulDavisThe1st11• 2 years ago

See my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41383744

viccis2• 2 years ago

Reddit is a good example of how insane that can make discourse look in some subreddits, with one large one in particular showing how you truly can just engineer a faux consensus by deleting and banning every single comment and commenter that differs even slightly.

JohnMakin5• 2 years ago

Exactly. Someone will post something abhorrent, critical replies will be removed, supportive replies will stay.

Precisely and this is the misguided approach to moderation I see everywhere - it basically turbo charges cry-bullies, trolls, and people devoted to spreading misinformation.

bangaroo2• 2 years ago

bluesky currently doesn't support private profiles, so that's a no-go.

while i fundamentally agree with what you're saying, the cases where a quote-skeet contains a polite or well-intentioned correction vs. is explicitly designed to enrage the quoter's follower-base and dunk on that person are way out of balance.

there are many people who will, rather than attempt to correct a misunderstanding (or simply ignore an opinion they don't agree with,) immediately jump to quote-tweeting and dunking on someone, trying to drag their followers into a dogpile. it's often just blatantly unnecessary and it is frequently a miserable experience to be on the receiving end of that.

i worry i'm coming across as lamenting cancel culture or something - i'm not - but i've absolutely had cases where someone with a different flavor of an opinion i agree with will see something i said, take my slightly different view on it, and quote skeet it with some nasty comment tearing into me. their friends, with no context of the discussion i was initially having, will just dive in and tear into me because they are clearly having fun doing it, not because it's actually correcting a problem or resolving a misunderstanding. i frequently have this happen from completely random passers-by to whom i wasn't speaking and who really would have no reason to see my post in the first place. i'm really not a controversial poster on bluesky, either. i really don't think i'm saying anything particularly offensive or earth-shattering. it's just a dumping ground for shower thoughts, mostly.

great example of this is some guy who randomly found a post i made about the fact that i was disappointed in joe biden's debate performance, which i'd say is a pretty uncontroversial opinion. he said some nasty stuff, i made the mistake of responding trying to explain myself, and then he just started replying to me exclusively in quote-skeets, berating me and mocking me, and the gaggle of idiots following him just dove on in and also decided to tear in to me for reasons that still don't make a whole lot of sense.

all this to say, if you've had any meaningful interaction with folks on these platforms, i feel like you understand the idealized version of a quote post and how far it is from how it's most frequently used.

Kye4• 2 years ago

Another real world example: A famous comedian once grossly misunderstood something I said, quote tweeted it with a framing based on that, and sent tens of thousands of views, hundreds of replies, and thousands of notifications my way over the course of a few minutes. All extremely hostile.

It can go well: SwiftOnSecurity once QTd me and their comment led to lots of good conversation on the quote and in my own notifications. But they cultivate a good community of followers and understand the responsibility they hold with a 6 digit follower count.

The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. An innocent mistake can be as harmful here as malice because, as I experienced, no amount of trying to address the mis-representation to people coming at me helped because I was just some nobody and someone they trusted told them what's what.

impossiblefork2• 2 years ago

On Reddit I mostly see this feature used for political manipulation. Especially by people who to me are obviously propagandists.

It's a very common pattern for me to encounter something, writing a reply I think is superb, seeing it highly upvoted, and then seeing the person I replied to delete that comment.

It's incredibly effective-- you get your propaganda out, and when it gets questioned it just disappears-- the lies will have affected many and the rebuttal seen by few.

BeetleB6• 2 years ago

That's why you quote the relevant portions...

perihelions2• 2 years ago

I'm only minimally familiar with BlueSky. Is it a fair analogy, for understanding what this is, to say it's like:

- If someone replies to this HN comment I just wrote, and I don't like it, I can delete their comment (because there is an thread ownership concept on BlueSky, and the earliest comment is the owner);

- If someone links to this HN comment I just wrote, and I don't like it, I can make that hyperlink disappear, or invalidate in some way (because BlueSky is a locked API garden and hyperlinks are not plain text, but magic cloud API tokens)

Is this much correct?

skrbjc2• 2 years ago

Pretty much, the first one being more like you can hide a comment that you don't like and if someone wants to see it they can click "see hidden replies"

Jare3• 2 years ago

My reading of "hiding replies" was that people who follow the replier would still see the reply as part of their normal feed. So you are not silencing them for their audience. Which is fair.

The removal of links to yourself is also very welcome.

Both tools have cons, and there's methods to work around them / prevent them from taking effect. But they address the default easy/trivial ways in which people can pollute other users, so in practice the value for users should prove high.

roblabla3• 2 years ago

- If someone replies to this HN comment I just wrote, and I don't like it, and I can delete their comment (because there is an thread ownership concept on BlueSky, and the earliest comment is the owner);

You can hide it - which I agree is functionally equivalent to deleting it as people are very unlikely to go dig for hidden comments. FWIW this is kinda similar to "flagging" a comment on HN, which (as far as I understand) will cause it to be hidden for everyone - at least until someone vouches it back.

- If someone links to this HN comment I just wrote, and I don't like it, I can make that hyperlink disappear, or invalidate in some way (because BlueSky is a locked API garden and hyperlinks are not plain text, but magic cloud API tokens)

You can just make the hyperlink disappear to anyone using the default BlueSky frontend. But from my understanding, the hyperlink will still be accessible through the API.

AnimalMuppet• 2 years ago

The difference is that on actual HN, it takes more than one flag vote to hide a comment. (I suspect it's in the range 2-5, but I don't actually know.) So one person can't make a post they don't like disappear.

an_ko• 2 years ago

To clarify how flagging works on HN: Flagging only hides a comment once "enough" users flag it, and even then remains visible to users with the showdead option set in their profile.

Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12173809

curtisblaine• 2 years ago

which I agree is functionally equivalent to deleting it as people are very unlikely to go dig for hidden comments.

I think you're being very optimistic here.

layer85• 2 years ago

You can hide it - which I agree is functionally equivalent to deleting it as people are very unlikely to go dig for hidden comments.

My understanding is that hidden replies are just one extra click away. From TFA: “All hidden replies will be placed behind a Hidden replies screen — so they’re still accessible, but much less visible.” Probably not much different from a collapsed subthread on Reddit.

skybrian5• 2 years ago

Only at the app level. At the protocol level, each user has a repo with their own posts and you can't delete other people's posts.

advisedwang• 2 years ago

Not really correct. You can

A) Make it so YOUR NAME and YOUR POST doesn't appear attached to a post that somebody else makes. Their post will still be visible to their followers.

B) Make it so that YOUR FOLLOWERS don't see somebody else's reply unless they click a "hidden replies" button. Their post will still be visible to their followers or someone looking at their timeline.

In no case can you prevent somebody's posts being visible to their followers.

saurik3• 2 years ago

The former doesn't make much sense in a distributed system where we expect to have multiple clients--and, preferably, no dominant one!--as there is no reason for the people you are restricting to opt in to that restriction.

B) Make it so that YOUR FOLLOWERS don't see somebody else's reply unless they click a "hidden replies" button. Their post will still be visible to their followers or someone looking at their timeline.

Like, for this latter use case, if I am following you, I am buying into your frame and am often am going to agree with your moderation choices on the people who reply to you, so it actually makes a lot of sense to me that I would accept your ability to hide replies I "shouldn't" / "wouldn't want to" see.

Meanwhile, the only recourse to be heard for the person whose reply was hidden is to do so to their own audience; this not only seems fair, but strips them of the power they were trying to "steal" from you when they replied to your post in the hope of gaining access to your audience.

A) Make it so YOUR NAME and YOUR POST doesn't appear attached to a post that somebody else makes. Their post will still be visible to their followers.

However, this former use case does not have the same structure: if I am following someone else and they talk about something you said, but now I can't see what/who they are talking about, I'm just going to get annoyed, as the goals of this feature don't align with the direct user of the client anymore.

At best, this just leads to people using workarounds, as the recourse is too powerful: anyone--not even merely the quoter--can add a reply with a screenshot of the post and a permalink through an external link shortener. At worst, it leads us down the dishonorable path of people demanding client DRM :/.

It sucks, because I was kind of excited about BlueSky actually caring about distributed incentive issues in a world where they were not the only client; but, this is the kind of mistake that people get goaded into making when they build a distributed system and start to assume centralization.

...and like, by the way: this feature is also inherently dishonest, as, even if it is documented how it works, a lot of users aren't going to understand it, and so they are going to assume they have a safety net in place that doesn't really exist in the protocol.

This honesty issue is similar to the way Snapchat claims people won't be able to (at least secretly, though I remember the original claim to be stronger) save the photos they send. Of course, people often can secretly screenshot your photos--such as using jailbroken devices or even merely a second camera via the good ol' analog loophole--but people send riskier photos because they trust the feature to protect them.

And yes, I totally understand that Snapchat's feature sort of works and maybe is better than nothing?... but, it only works due to continual effort Snapchat invests--from both their engineers and lawyers--to enforce the feature by embracing DRM, implementing user behavior profiling / banning, and sending legal cease and desist notices to alternative clients.

I hope (but no longer can assume) that BlueSky won't (or can't) ever go to such lengths; and so, in some sense, the feature is even less honest, right? :/ Even if the feature "sort of works", the power only comes from "pretty much there is only one client everyone has", and so the incentives are broken.

If I were building this, I would have done the exact opposite: if someone "quotes" you, there should be a copy of that content stored on the quoter's end, so that it is still visible even if the original is deleted... but like, that copy would be trivially editable, so no one ever treats previews as truth.

You have to implement it like that, as it has to be functionally equivalent to the analog loophole version of the feature -- the one where the quoter just attaches a potentially-forged screenshot of the post along with a link through an external shortener -- in order to align everyone's incentives.

sigmar• 2 years ago

The Bluesky app won’t list all the quote post removals directly on your post, but developers with knowledge of the Bluesky API will be able to access this data.

Seems like they have some good ideas for how to deal with quote posts/tweets. But I don't understand how decisions like this are compatible with their hopes to eventually make the network decentralized. Surely you can't trust individual servers to obey this anti harassment feature? Are they no longer planning to make it decentralized?

rapht• 2 years ago

The fact that you can still access hidden quotes/replies/etc from the API makes me think it's a client-side (i.e. app-only) feature.

saurik3• 2 years ago

But would any other client bother to implement this feature? Helping me not see toxic bullshit helps me as a user and I might opt in to various content curation schemes; but, if I am already looking at something, removing the context for what they are talking about does not help me. It is like, imagine if I was permalinked on HN to a flagged comment, because someone wanted me to see it, but the "parent" button didn't work.

CuriousCosmic4• 2 years ago

It is. Everything in bluesky that runs on the AT protocol (like 99% of it) is currently public.

So if you as the OP detach your post from the QRT, all you are doing is posting a certificate (akin to a revocation cert) that declares the intent that you don't want their QRT to be connected to your post.

An app can still show it. Or it can show it behind a warning prompt. Or it can hide it entirely.

It's an intent and even if it was controlled entirely, a determined third party could still work around it so there's not much point in trying to stop them. Instead you operate on "Don't be a dick" principles.

skybrian5• 2 years ago

These release notes are about the official apps and website. Yes, other apps could do whatever they like, in theory. But they're concentrating on UI improvements to the official apps, and I don't know of any others.

toyg• 2 years ago

Nobody builds a centralized app and then successfully decentralizes it. Nobody. If you want a decentralized network, you build a decentralized network - and then centralize it to the minimum degree necessary for it to actually work and scale.

The rest is PR.

eli2• 2 years ago

Nobody builds a successful decentralized app, period.

CuriousCosmic4• 2 years ago

That's exactly what they've done. Bluesky is a decentralised service. It was designed to be decentralised. It's currently centralised in a limited capacity because they didn't open up federation right away.

First they allowed DID federation (i.e. you can host your own DID by tying it to your domain name). Then feed curation. Then data storage. Then moderation features. And so on. There's really only a few things left and those are systems that are designed in a decentralised manner but for the sake of a smooth transition have yet to be handed over fully to the community.

danabramov2• 2 years ago

The way decentralization works on Bluesky is similar to how the web itself works.

The part that's decentralized is users' storage of data — anyone can host it themselves (we provide both a Docker image of a server that can do that, and the source code for the server, and a spec in case you want to write your own).

However, applications (such as Bluesky) are centralized in the sense that there's just one instance of each application and it can make choices about how to aggregate the decentralized data from the network. A useful analogy is how Google crawls the web into its index but can present stuff from its index according to its own rules.

In this case, quote posts removals don't remove anything from the user repositories (you can't remove data from someone else's repository just like you can't remove data from someone else's website). Rather, when you detach someone's quote, you're putting a record into your repository (declaring the intent to detach it). Our app (both server and client) respects that intent and displays it accordingly.

Indeed, other clients could choose to not respect that, but the default behavior for most users matters a lot — and in general good faith clients try to be well-behaved and align with users' expectations.

verdverm8• 2 years ago

Breaking out feeds and moderation are also interesting design decisions that allow an app like Bluesky to give users more control and select algorithms from outside the centralization

jazzyjackson6• 2 years ago

Best explanation of the network topology yet, if I'm reading this correctly this removes the problem of not being able to participate on the global network just because the application you chose to interact with it is considered an "evil server" and banned from participation like mastodon, in other words, user accounts aren't associated with a home server that determines who they can interact with, is that right?

How does an application decide whose repos to index?

echelon• 2 years ago

This is a "gotcha" mechanic, not a feed filtering mechanic.

Platforms are not only turning people thin-skinned, they're actively amplifying the desire for us to control the behaviors of others.

This is why we need true P2P social media instead of platforms or cabal-led federation.

PaulDavisThe1st11• 2 years ago

It's really nothing to do with "controlling the behavior of others".

What I'm seeing on Mastodon is a desire by quite a few people to use these open, public messaging systems as something more akin to private mailing lists. They have no desire for anyone-can-read/anyone-can-reply, they just want a nice little circle of people who all agree to be a part of the circle and to have the others there too.

I believe that many of the people who want this are too young to have ever been on old listserv-style mailing lists, and for them, this sort of messaging technology is obviously how you would do this sort of thing.

I don't think they are right, but I also see how they would think this, and they're not clearly wrong.

edflsafoiewq• 2 years ago

Twitterlikes seem to straddle the space between a public forum, with open discussion on particular topics, and a private blog, where the author moderates the comment section on their posts.

BeetleB6• 2 years ago

That's correct, but what are the alternatives? Most people aren't going to do it via email, so Listserv won't work. And they want convenient features like links and images.

I'm not a social media guy so I truly don't know if alternatives exist. Google Plus is the only service I know that seriously tried to solve the problem. At the moment Mastodon seems like the simplest approach. If they could define "circles" (that applies across servers), then it would be ideal.

I'm on server A and you are on server B. I define a circle (and own it), and I add you to it. The system ensures that only people within the circle can see the posts, and you cannot reshare outside the circle. If someone in the circle is misbehaving, I can kick them out. Perhaps add some moderation capability (within the circle).

You can argue that this is just a "Mastodon network within a Mastodon network", and you'd be correct. It still acts mostly like a "private" list.

Lots of other subtleties to figure out, but this alone would be a great start!

mock-possum• 2 years ago

platforms are … turning people thin-skinned

How do you figure?

nwoli• 2 years ago

Love every program having a little police bundled in them these days

neilv2• 2 years ago

UI design comment: In their first example of detachment, two ways that "Removed by author" seems ambiguous:

* which author is meant (the quoter, or the quotee)

* whether the quoted post was removed, or merely the link to it

This ambiguity not only requires learning by all users of that platform, but will also be confusing to non-users, such as when screenshotted on another venue.

pfraze2• 2 years ago

Yeah actually I agree about this, we should update it

Kye4• 2 years ago

Hi paul

Anyway, consider

"hidden by quoted user"

taeric2• 2 years ago

Anyone have a good analysis on the various strategies different sites have tried over the years? Feels like it would have to include threaded versus non-threaded conversations, as well. I don't typically think of that as a way to control toxic crowds, but it does help stay aware of conversations without having to follow down rabbit holes.

ThrowawayTestr2• 2 years ago

The only strategy that works is a tight knit community that is hostile to bad actors and good moderation. Trying to automate away human negativity will never work.

symlinkk3• 2 years ago

Moderation just leads to censorship. Upvote / downvotes are good enough on their own, we don’t need someone babysitting us.

isk517• 2 years ago

The Somethingawful forums is still one of the best places on the internet, the $10 price tag on accounts help reduce the bad actors (or at least puts a price tag on bad behavior) and thus make good moderation easier. Sadly the free internet suffers from the tragedy of the commons, of course an entirely pay to access internet will be it own nightmare.

taeric2• 2 years ago

I'm not necessarily asking about how to automate negativity away. I'm honestly not clear that you want to eliminate all negativity. Indeed, I am generally wary of policies that kick out members. It can help some things, sure; but not having a path to good is a problem for members, too. Similarly, not allowing any bad behavior is the "purity spiral" that has killed a fair number of communities, too. You don't want it to flare out in such a way that it causes trouble, though.

I'm also curious on the tight knit community. I recognize some names here, sure. I think I would be stretching definitions to say I was part of this community, though? Specifically, I'm guessing there is, at most, a hand full that would ever recognize my username?

mensetmanusman• 2 years ago

Shadowban everyone, use ai to fake engagement.

seoulmetro7• 2 years ago

Shadowban everyone and everything. Use moderators to instil a regime of discourse that puts certain concepts on a unjust pedestal. Use people who agree with the message as missionaries and AI/fake posts as fuel.

Sell this as a functional system of discourse and attach ads to the product so people have no need to login.

bangaladore7• 2 years ago

This is a terrible idea. They even note it by saying "we’re leaning into labeling services and hoping to integrate a Community Notes-like feature in the future".

Why push an update that is undoubtedly a net negative when the company itself suggests that it's not the best solution?

2OEH8eoCRo02• 2 years ago

Show me a perfect solution. I'll wait.

bangaladore7• 2 years ago

Having no solutions may be better than implementing flawed solutions.

CuriousCosmic4• 2 years ago

What makes you think this is a terrible feature. This is a federated service and the company is actively attempting to get the service to a state where it can exist independently of them, preferably without the service fracturing into a bunch of islands, mostly separate from each other (cough mastodon cough).

What solution would you propose that's better than this one and how is this solution a net negative (personally I think labelling services are a great approach to the problem)?

bangaladore7• 2 years ago

Community notes have been very effective in retaining public trust while combating misinformation on Twitter/X.

This is the polar opposite of that. Delete all opinions you disagree with, no matter the reasons.

Echo chambers are not productive. Full stop. It will lead to worse outcomes.

I would have a different opinion if they weren't advertising this as a general-purpose way to shut people up. This could work if it were just a method to remove "rule-breaking" posts where some authority would still evaluate the reason for removal.

Zenzero• 2 years ago

Not going to lie, I think Bluesky's effort is good for reducing inflammatory and combative behavior on the internet. So this response:

This is a terrible idea

Got a good chuckle from me.

JohnMakin5• 2 years ago

Glad it made you laugh, but in my experience as a moderator, these types of efforts result in the complete opposite and only empower trolls.

Like this is 10000% going to happen:

someone makes an inflammatory tweet. Bunch of replies, back and forth. The original poster will get someone to say something absolutely horrible when taken out of context of the argument, hide all other replies except the horrible one and act like a victim (while continuing to post inflammatory rage bait).

Trolls spreading misinformation will use this to hide any criticism. Serial scammers will do the exact same thing.

Not one single thing about this will reduce inflammatory and combative behavior on the internet, let alone bluesky.

ChocolateGod• 2 years ago

I think "microblogging" format, such as Bluesky, Twitter, Mastodon etc, just seems to bring out the worst in people, I don't think it's possible to combat it properly when the format itself encourages it.

lilyball2• 2 years ago

Because quoting is also used as a harassment vector.

mlindner2• 2 years ago

If your goal is to create a space where people can only say nice things and only agree with you, then yeah this a great method to do it. It's a great way to create a tiny bubble of like-minded people and allow you to spiral ever deeper into the bubble as outside debate and challenging of assumptions becomes disallowed.

scudsworth• 2 years ago

just a few more years of work on the moderation features. then the site will get really good, probably

skybrian5• 2 years ago

The UI is quite pleasant already, provided you want "superficially like Twitter was, but better."

I have trouble finding people or feeds worth following, but give it time. The same was true for Twitter when I started.

My one recommendation: the Moss feed is agreeably chill.

verdverm8• 2 years ago

The recently introduced StarterPacks so people can collect groups of accounts on a topic for new users go quickly find and follow.

They seem to be holding off on indexing these, as well as the block lists, to prevent abuse. I saw they wrote that somewhere, but cannot find it at the moment

koolala• 2 years ago

People talking about people is taboo to me. It's a very easy habbit to get into. I like seperating Ideas from People.

mlindner2• 2 years ago

Well I was considering creating a Bluesky account, but now I definitely won't. I don't want my comments getting purged just because I argued with the author of a post.

This isn't "Anti-Toxicity" in as much it as "affirmation bubble creating". Your followers become your yes men and anyone arguing with you gets their comments purged from anyone seeing them.

anamexis• 2 years ago

Do you use Twitter (X)? Because you can hide specific replies to your post there, too.

layer85• 2 years ago

Your comments don’t get purged, they just require an extra “show hidden comments” click to be viewed.

seoulmetro7• 2 years ago

These aren't anti toxicity features. They're censorship tools.

It's quite hard to make anti-toxicity features and I'd love to see some real ones. These aren't them.

New Anti-Toxicity Features on Bluesky

Related Stories