You must log in or # to comment.
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.
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!
If you’re toxic and you mute toxic words, will it hide your own posts?
I tested it with “cat” and it blocks me from seeing things I’ve reposted with the word “cat” in it, so yeah it might! :)
Reminds me of those conservative men who complained on xitter or insta that TikTok is sexualizing girls. They showed their TikTok feed and it is full of young girls dancing in cheerleader outfits. These people don’t understand how the feed works and they were basically outing themselves.
There has also been an influx of toxic people whose only joy is getting a reaction out of others that are joining because the people they’d normally target on X are leaving. I’ve seen them trying to get the same type of engagement they used to get and also a lot of other people calling them out as “Hey, this person is an ass, you can block them/add them to the MAGA Trolls list”. That could seem like a flood of toxicity to some.
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.
Dude needs to learn about blocklists if that’s what his feed looks like. There definitely is a cesspool but it’s pretty isolated.
There are exceptions of course but IMHO, you shouldn’t block toxic contents, you call them out instead. Doing so basically puts a red flag to any would-be readers that this person and the associated content is harmful and dangerous.
Calling out bad actors gives them an audience. Nine of your readers will agree that this person is a piece of shit but the tenth will think “hmm maybe there’s some truth to this” and follow that bad actor. And that’s how it propagates. No, nothing but blocks and silent treatment to people feeding on outrage.
In public sure, but this is the internet, where the Streisand effect is the unifying order of the week. It’s why the age old saying “bad press is better than no press” exists
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”?
You only need to look at the many BlueSky posts here to see that many people view BlueSky as an attack on federation. It’s only natural to see people on Mastodon shitting on BlueSky for taking what they see as their success away from them.
because bluesky has had a collective struggle session recently with the twitter posters migrating over and realising they’re not actually being welcomed in open arms, usually when they out themselves with shit like genocide denial and transphobia.
No because Bluesky has block lists so all that stuff is so easily filtered. It’s honestly really lovely.
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…
subskeet
lol
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
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.
Seen very little of it on either Bluesky or Mastodon to be honest. Maybe it’s the type of searches or activities followed.
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.
Nope. Not true.
This is the most correct.
This is called “virtue signalling”.
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 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
