6 ms·

It's not the fault of BlueSky or their users, but I really haven't enjoyed the social media climate right now. If I want to have a discussion about subject X I

It's not the fault of BlueSky or their users, but I really haven't enjoyed the social media climate right now. If I want to have a discussion about subject X I would need to be deep inside echo chamber social media network Y. For some subjects that is BlueSky and for others it would be platforms I don't want to participate in. I think the reality is that most social media platforms will inevitability create hyper-polarized audiences that do little more than generate content.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
The hyper-polarization is probably preventable, in my estimation. The main thing a social network would need to do is to stymy the flywheel effect that allows a handful of users (and thus sets of norms) to come to dominate so strongly. That might mean something along the lines of a system that puts a hard cap on the reach any profile or topic can have, and when engagement exceeds the triggering threshold, reach actually tapers off proportionate to how far the threshold is exceeded. In theory this would naturally elevate posts that are more measured and mundane while sinking posts with big emotional lizard brain appeal (by design or otherwise). With time this would establish a self-reinforcing norm that makes polarized and inflammatory posts look as clownish as they actually are.
- rectang 1y ago
  > stymy the flywheel effect that allows a handful of users (and thus sets of norms) to come to dominate so strongly This prevents certain communities from forming and certain topics from being discussed. For example, you can't discuss LGBTQ issues with troll armies constantly swarming and spamming. If such communities are not given tools to exclude malignant disruptors by setting norms and "dominating" a given channel, they will have to go elsewhere (such as leaving X for BlueSky).
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    This system wouldn’t work in place of moderation, but rather alongside it. The two would have an enhancing effect on each other: - Reach limits greatly limit troll effectiveness, since they can’t find each other as easily - Posts that exceed the threshold naturally vs. being trolled past would have different “fingerprints” that could be used like a blacklight for troll detection for both assisting moderators and for model training for automatic suspected troll flagging The threshold should probably be dynamic and set at the point at which posts “breach containment” (escape from their intended audience), which is where problems tend to occur. Bluesky-like self-moderation controls would also help.
    - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
      moderation inevitably leads to exclusion- just look at the US state specific subreddits that are moderated by radicals who prohibit even the slightest deviation from their views which silences dissent. This one-sided viewpoint is then slurped up and used to train AI models in a kind of gross feedback loop
      - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        Reddit’s fatal flaw is that subreddit mods are volunteers. Sometimes this works well when you get a knowledgable, benevolent individual in the position, but more often than not you get people who want to power trip. Mods should be in-house, on payroll, and strictly bound to the network’s standards. This should generally be less of an issue anyway in a system that actively penalizes the sorts of crudely expressed, un-nuanced posts that are typically social media’s bread and butter. Not being able to appeal to basal emotions (“it feels right” is a poor metric) and being required to substantiate views more intelligently takes the air out of a lot of fringe sails.
      - rectang 1y ago
        > moderation inevitably leads to exclusion Yes, it has to, because trolls and haters are relentless. The choice of whether or not marginalized communities are allowed to ban abusive posters is fundamental because moderation resources are finite. Of course, there are many who believe that marginalized communities should not be allowed to moderate posts and should be willing to absorb a constant onslaught of abuse as the price of existing.
        1234letshaveatw 1y ago
        One person's "trolls and haters" is another's dissenter. It is disturbing how quickly marginalized communities become echo chambers
        cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        Nah, much of the time a trolls and haters are just trolls and haters. Dissenters who want to taken seriously generally aren’t easily mistakable as trolls because they’re not there to try to get a rise out of the opposing side. One also needs to keep in mind for spaces for marginalized in particular are more sensitive than typical because they have to keep their shields up at all times because of how much more likely attacks are. If making them feel like they can safely drop their shields is a goal, then incidents like people posting in an antagonistic and/or harassing manner needs to drop to background radiation levels.
  - packetlost 1y ago
    As always, there's a balance. Communities (and individuals) generally need the ability to moderate and manage access to both membership and interactions with the community. Algorithmic-driven open platforms are sorta mutually incompatible with that idea
  - Levitz 1y ago
    Problem is that then the communities do form, but automatically radicalize. Truth Social and Bluesky users are in similar bubbles, just in opposite sides of the spectrum.
    - rectang 1y ago
      So what? Should they not exist? Why must marginalized communities leave themselves defenseless and accept that they can only have a conversation among themselves in the midst of a hurricane of abuse?
      - simianwords 1y ago
        Because they can get so dominant as to alienate normal users. Like in Reddit. But I agree with your larger point and I think it is a valid point.
      - Karrot_Kream 1y ago
        Personally I think media like Bluesky are not suited to form these forms of closed communities. There's nothing wrong with closed/gated community and I think it's especially important for marginalized communities as you mention, but I think in 2025 you could do that with a Discord "server", Discourse forum, or a non-federated Lemmy instance. The problem with folks like this on Bluesky and X is that they want to both have a closed community but also benefit from the easy comings and goings that a more open forum offers. IMO it's a fools errand. There's a reason why the humble group chat has won as the social media of choice for, well, everyone.
- RiverCrochet 1y ago
  I think a lot of social network problems would be solved if platforms put an orange flag next to profiles that have posted more than 10 times in the last 24 hours, and a red flag next to profiles that have posted more than 60 times in the last 7 days. The total number of flags ever given to an account on the bio would be good as well. No other automatic action, just a visible flag or other symbol. Being able to temporarily filter out profiles that post too many times (a setting you could change) would also be nice, but it shouldn't be automatic.
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    Not a bad idea. It may also be good to distinguish replies and reposts from unique timeline posts, with “reply guys” consistently being some of the most notorious individuals.
  - skybrian 1y ago
    Bluesky has a “quiet posters” feed that I find useful.
    - dhosek 1y ago
      It’s somebody’s side-thing, I think and not official Bluesky, but yes, that’s become my primary feed for Bluesky. Following is my secondary and I almost never look at discover or popular with friends.
- skybrian 1y ago
  I think it’s more about not taking posts out of context. Communities need boundaries between them. Substack and other blogging tools are good this way. For Bluesky, the problem is that the replies to someone you follow can be pretty bad. (Official Bluesky posts are an example of this.) People can filter them individually, but it’s not the same as a blog with good moderation. I don’t think I could do a whole lot if the replies to one of my Bluesky posts were bad?
  - dhosek 1y ago
    But blocking on Bluesky works better than it did on Twitter. If you post a crummy reply to me and I block you, nobody sees your reply. There are a few other small differences between Bluesky and Twitter that really do a lot to cut down on the pile-on effect that’s common at Twitter.
    - skybrian 1y ago
      That’s good, but there are low-information posts where a hard block on first offense is kind of harsh.
      - dhosek 1y ago
        Nah, I have no obligation to interact with anyone I don’t want to.
        xdennis 1y ago
        That's true, but the result is a boring platform where everyone agrees on everything, and even the most minor disagreement will get you blocked. This post by a user who discovered that he instantly got 30000 blockers simply by joining and following some starter packs of journalists IS HILARIOUS: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySocial/comments/1mgz19y/why_i_had_to_leave_bluesky/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySocial/comments/1mgz19y/why_...
        KingMob 1y ago
- gamacodre 1y ago
  A recent study[1] seems to indicate that polarization is a hard problem, along with some of the other negative effects of social media. Many of the commonly suggested solutions have minimal impact, or no effect at all. That flywheel effect is surprisingly robust. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03385 https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03385
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    I saw that, but the approach taken is questionable (do LLMs represent realistic behavior for scenarios they’ve not been trained for?) and it also doesn’t seem like anything like my suggestions here were tested. It’s better than nothing, but far from conclusive in my opinion.
epistasis 1y ago
There's a lot of hot tub parties out there. Some have people you want I really want to interact with, some do not. Some have good house rules making it feel comfortable, some do not. The best part of BlueSky in my opinion is that it's really easy to control what you want to see, without the site-owner's algorithm choosing for you. No matter who else is at the hot tub party, I don't have to worry much about them peeing in my particular hot tub. I hear Mastodon is somewhat similar, but it's been a while. The balance between discovery and curation and control is nigh-on perfect for me in BlueSky. If I want to focus just on my corner of the science world, it's super easy for me to build a network of people just in that corner and not get spammed with, say, racially-tinged fight videos that are meant for engagement bait, as has happened on other social networks. If you want hyper-polarized communities, some of those can be found on BlueSky too! But at least on BlueSky I'm able to choose what I want rather than having the preferences of the site owner control my information environment.
dkiebd 1y ago
This completely depends on the moderation policies of the website. So, yes, the platforms are at fault.
fabian2k 1y ago
The hyper-polarization is already in the real world, so I don't think social media can avoid that.
kodt 1y ago
I left X because of how bad it got but BlueSky is also quite often useless in terms of good discussion. Recently any substack article posted is just filled with comments about how using substack supports Nazi ideology, no other discussion to be had. When it comes to anything related to AI the comments are all about stealing from artists. It is as if people just wait for the right buzzword to appear and post their canned response. Interesting posts that don't cause any controversy just don't have much engagement.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  My qualms with Bluesky has less to do with ideological leanings (it’s true that there are ethics implications that a lot of people like to sweep under the rug and that should be pointed out) and more with how depressing it is to use, with an overwhelming sentiment of doom. I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend everything is just peachy (it’s not) but the doomerism is so strong and pervasive that I think it breeds complacency that when met with the sugar high of social media engagement reacts to form armchair activism (which breeds yet more complacency). All that time and energy may be better spent building each other up and encouraging action through an optimistic outlook.
- tomku 1y ago
  The same trend is noticeable here on HN. Many threads are full of top-level posts that are just someone pattern-matching on a word they don't like in the headline and using it as an excuse to vent about whatever their pet issue is. Usually posts like that are magnets for zero-effort "me too"s and similar. Sometimes interesting discussions happen deeper in the threads, but it's disappointingly rare. It's really sad watching the entire internet turn into this, and I can't help but feel like places like Twitter/X and Bluesky are the source.
bigstrat2003 1y ago
I think that Twitter (and by extension, Bluesky) is designed in such a way that it promotes hostility and division. You can't really have a good discussion when the format makes people limit their posting to super short messages; it means people just dump hot takes on each other and wind up shouting past each other. So in that sense I certainly would call it the platforms' fault. Twitter (and Bluesky/Mastodon) are toxic to our society and we would be far better off if they were never created.
- wonderwonder 1y ago
  Twitter allows you to post free length messages but you have to be a paid member. Which is also how they solved some of their monetization issues.
thoughtFrame 1y ago
For all that it sounds unlikely, it'd be nice if the blogosphere, with blog replies and pingbacks, could come back for this sort of discussion. No monetization, though, so substack and co. are out.
- Eupolemos 1y ago
  What, in your opinion, is wrong with a bit of monetization? I know it can produce some posts of less value, but it also pulls the blogger back in and allows professionals in certain areas to not feel they give put high quality out there for absolutely nothing. I just mean, I can see the pros, but not really serious cons, so I'm wondering what your take is?
throwaway29812 1y ago
That's the one question I had over and over when Twitter was slowly dying. Do we really need another Twitter?
stronglikedan 1y ago
> If I want to have a discussion about subject X I would need to be deep inside echo chamber social media network Y. To me, this is the crux of your problem. Social media is like a, well, social space like a bar. Not everyone shares the same opinions, but most of the patrons can at least agree enough to not fight each other, which is sort of an echo chamber since yelling something against the grain would get your ask kicked in a bar. Forums are the place to have a discussion about subject X, since everyone is there to have that discussion. Of course, if you get off topic or snippy the conversation may devolve, but if you stay on topic you can have a nice conversation about subject X.
TacticalCoder 1y ago
[dead]
Levitz 1y ago
>It's not the fault of BlueSky or their users I'd actually argue against this. although I'd probably blame Reddit more. It is now normal for social media to be composed of echo chambers and that's because administrations and users enable and seek that. If someone's to blame more than Twitter/Reddit and their respective users I'm missing it, and on that note, blocklists as a functionality in BlueSky are there precisely to protect echo chambers.
belkinpower 1y ago
The user base is the problem on Bluesky, at least for me. It’s full of well-meaning middle-aged people who don’t understand online discussion etiquette. Any non-political post that gets any sort of traction will get filled up with irrelevant bot-like (but real, as far as I can tell) political meme replies that barely make sense.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  I'm just happy to be somewhere where even the "bot-like" replies aren't actually bots. Impossible on Twitter thanks to the blue-check promotion.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

The hyper-polarization is probably preventable, in my estimation. The main thing a social network would need to do is to stymy the flywheel effect that allows a handful of users (and thus sets of norms) to come to dominate so strongly. That might mean something along the lines of a system that puts a hard cap on the reach any profile or topic can have, and when engagement exceeds the triggering threshold, reach actually tapers off proportionate to how far the threshold is exceeded. In theory this would naturally elevate posts that are more measured and mundane while sinking posts with big emotional lizard brain appeal (by design or otherwise). With time this would establish a self-reinforcing norm that makes polarized and inflammatory posts look as clownish as they actually are.

rectang 1y ago
> stymy the flywheel effect that allows a handful of users (and thus sets of norms) to come to dominate so strongly This prevents certain communities from forming and certain topics from being discussed. For example, you can't discuss LGBTQ issues with troll armies constantly swarming and spamming. If such communities are not given tools to exclude malignant disruptors by setting norms and "dominating" a given channel, they will have to go elsewhere (such as leaving X for BlueSky).
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  This system wouldn’t work in place of moderation, but rather alongside it. The two would have an enhancing effect on each other: - Reach limits greatly limit troll effectiveness, since they can’t find each other as easily - Posts that exceed the threshold naturally vs. being trolled past would have different “fingerprints” that could be used like a blacklight for troll detection for both assisting moderators and for model training for automatic suspected troll flagging The threshold should probably be dynamic and set at the point at which posts “breach containment” (escape from their intended audience), which is where problems tend to occur. Bluesky-like self-moderation controls would also help.
  - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
    moderation inevitably leads to exclusion- just look at the US state specific subreddits that are moderated by radicals who prohibit even the slightest deviation from their views which silences dissent. This one-sided viewpoint is then slurped up and used to train AI models in a kind of gross feedback loop
    - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
      Reddit’s fatal flaw is that subreddit mods are volunteers. Sometimes this works well when you get a knowledgable, benevolent individual in the position, but more often than not you get people who want to power trip. Mods should be in-house, on payroll, and strictly bound to the network’s standards. This should generally be less of an issue anyway in a system that actively penalizes the sorts of crudely expressed, un-nuanced posts that are typically social media’s bread and butter. Not being able to appeal to basal emotions (“it feels right” is a poor metric) and being required to substantiate views more intelligently takes the air out of a lot of fringe sails.
    - rectang 1y ago
      > moderation inevitably leads to exclusion Yes, it has to, because trolls and haters are relentless. The choice of whether or not marginalized communities are allowed to ban abusive posters is fundamental because moderation resources are finite. Of course, there are many who believe that marginalized communities should not be allowed to moderate posts and should be willing to absorb a constant onslaught of abuse as the price of existing.
      - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
        One person's "trolls and haters" is another's dissenter. It is disturbing how quickly marginalized communities become echo chambers
        cosmic_cheese 1y ago
        Nah, much of the time a trolls and haters are just trolls and haters. Dissenters who want to taken seriously generally aren’t easily mistakable as trolls because they’re not there to try to get a rise out of the opposing side. One also needs to keep in mind for spaces for marginalized in particular are more sensitive than typical because they have to keep their shields up at all times because of how much more likely attacks are. If making them feel like they can safely drop their shields is a goal, then incidents like people posting in an antagonistic and/or harassing manner needs to drop to background radiation levels.
- packetlost 1y ago
  As always, there's a balance. Communities (and individuals) generally need the ability to moderate and manage access to both membership and interactions with the community. Algorithmic-driven open platforms are sorta mutually incompatible with that idea
- Levitz 1y ago
  Problem is that then the communities do form, but automatically radicalize. Truth Social and Bluesky users are in similar bubbles, just in opposite sides of the spectrum.
  - rectang 1y ago
    So what? Should they not exist? Why must marginalized communities leave themselves defenseless and accept that they can only have a conversation among themselves in the midst of a hurricane of abuse?
    - simianwords 1y ago
      Because they can get so dominant as to alienate normal users. Like in Reddit. But I agree with your larger point and I think it is a valid point.
    - Karrot_Kream 1y ago
      Personally I think media like Bluesky are not suited to form these forms of closed communities. There's nothing wrong with closed/gated community and I think it's especially important for marginalized communities as you mention, but I think in 2025 you could do that with a Discord "server", Discourse forum, or a non-federated Lemmy instance. The problem with folks like this on Bluesky and X is that they want to both have a closed community but also benefit from the easy comings and goings that a more open forum offers. IMO it's a fools errand. There's a reason why the humble group chat has won as the social media of choice for, well, everyone.
RiverCrochet 1y ago
I think a lot of social network problems would be solved if platforms put an orange flag next to profiles that have posted more than 10 times in the last 24 hours, and a red flag next to profiles that have posted more than 60 times in the last 7 days. The total number of flags ever given to an account on the bio would be good as well. No other automatic action, just a visible flag or other symbol. Being able to temporarily filter out profiles that post too many times (a setting you could change) would also be nice, but it shouldn't be automatic.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Not a bad idea. It may also be good to distinguish replies and reposts from unique timeline posts, with “reply guys” consistently being some of the most notorious individuals.
- skybrian 1y ago
  Bluesky has a “quiet posters” feed that I find useful.
  - dhosek 1y ago
    It’s somebody’s side-thing, I think and not official Bluesky, but yes, that’s become my primary feed for Bluesky. Following is my secondary and I almost never look at discover or popular with friends.
skybrian 1y ago
I think it’s more about not taking posts out of context. Communities need boundaries between them. Substack and other blogging tools are good this way. For Bluesky, the problem is that the replies to someone you follow can be pretty bad. (Official Bluesky posts are an example of this.) People can filter them individually, but it’s not the same as a blog with good moderation. I don’t think I could do a whole lot if the replies to one of my Bluesky posts were bad?
- dhosek 1y ago
  But blocking on Bluesky works better than it did on Twitter. If you post a crummy reply to me and I block you, nobody sees your reply. There are a few other small differences between Bluesky and Twitter that really do a lot to cut down on the pile-on effect that’s common at Twitter.
  - skybrian 1y ago
    That’s good, but there are low-information posts where a hard block on first offense is kind of harsh.
    - dhosek 1y ago
      Nah, I have no obligation to interact with anyone I don’t want to.
      - xdennis 1y ago
        That's true, but the result is a boring platform where everyone agrees on everything, and even the most minor disagreement will get you blocked. This post by a user who discovered that he instantly got 30000 blockers simply by joining and following some starter packs of journalists IS HILARIOUS: https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySocial/comments/1mgz19y/why_i_had_to_leave_bluesky/ https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueskySocial/comments/1mgz19y/why_...
        KingMob 1y ago
gamacodre 1y ago
A recent study[1] seems to indicate that polarization is a hard problem, along with some of the other negative effects of social media. Many of the commonly suggested solutions have minimal impact, or no effect at all. That flywheel effect is surprisingly robust. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03385 https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.03385
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  I saw that, but the approach taken is questionable (do LLMs represent realistic behavior for scenarios they’ve not been trained for?) and it also doesn’t seem like anything like my suggestions here were tested. It’s better than nothing, but far from conclusive in my opinion.

epistasis 1y ago

There's a lot of hot tub parties out there. Some have people you want I really want to interact with, some do not. Some have good house rules making it feel comfortable, some do not. The best part of BlueSky in my opinion is that it's really easy to control what you want to see, without the site-owner's algorithm choosing for you. No matter who else is at the hot tub party, I don't have to worry much about them peeing in my particular hot tub. I hear Mastodon is somewhat similar, but it's been a while. The balance between discovery and curation and control is nigh-on perfect for me in BlueSky. If I want to focus just on my corner of the science world, it's super easy for me to build a network of people just in that corner and not get spammed with, say, racially-tinged fight videos that are meant for engagement bait, as has happened on other social networks. If you want hyper-polarized communities, some of those can be found on BlueSky too! But at least on BlueSky I'm able to choose what I want rather than having the preferences of the site owner control my information environment.

dkiebd 1y ago

This completely depends on the moderation policies of the website. So, yes, the platforms are at fault.

fabian2k 1y ago

The hyper-polarization is already in the real world, so I don't think social media can avoid that.

kodt 1y ago

I left X because of how bad it got but BlueSky is also quite often useless in terms of good discussion. Recently any substack article posted is just filled with comments about how using substack supports Nazi ideology, no other discussion to be had. When it comes to anything related to AI the comments are all about stealing from artists. It is as if people just wait for the right buzzword to appear and post their canned response. Interesting posts that don't cause any controversy just don't have much engagement.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
My qualms with Bluesky has less to do with ideological leanings (it’s true that there are ethics implications that a lot of people like to sweep under the rug and that should be pointed out) and more with how depressing it is to use, with an overwhelming sentiment of doom. I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend everything is just peachy (it’s not) but the doomerism is so strong and pervasive that I think it breeds complacency that when met with the sugar high of social media engagement reacts to form armchair activism (which breeds yet more complacency). All that time and energy may be better spent building each other up and encouraging action through an optimistic outlook.
tomku 1y ago
The same trend is noticeable here on HN. Many threads are full of top-level posts that are just someone pattern-matching on a word they don't like in the headline and using it as an excuse to vent about whatever their pet issue is. Usually posts like that are magnets for zero-effort "me too"s and similar. Sometimes interesting discussions happen deeper in the threads, but it's disappointingly rare. It's really sad watching the entire internet turn into this, and I can't help but feel like places like Twitter/X and Bluesky are the source.

bigstrat2003 1y ago

I think that Twitter (and by extension, Bluesky) is designed in such a way that it promotes hostility and division. You can't really have a good discussion when the format makes people limit their posting to super short messages; it means people just dump hot takes on each other and wind up shouting past each other. So in that sense I certainly would call it the platforms' fault. Twitter (and Bluesky/Mastodon) are toxic to our society and we would be far better off if they were never created.

wonderwonder 1y ago
Twitter allows you to post free length messages but you have to be a paid member. Which is also how they solved some of their monetization issues.

thoughtFrame 1y ago

For all that it sounds unlikely, it'd be nice if the blogosphere, with blog replies and pingbacks, could come back for this sort of discussion. No monetization, though, so substack and co. are out.

Eupolemos 1y ago
What, in your opinion, is wrong with a bit of monetization? I know it can produce some posts of less value, but it also pulls the blogger back in and allows professionals in certain areas to not feel they give put high quality out there for absolutely nothing. I just mean, I can see the pros, but not really serious cons, so I'm wondering what your take is?

throwaway29812 1y ago

That's the one question I had over and over when Twitter was slowly dying. Do we really need another Twitter?

stronglikedan 1y ago

> If I want to have a discussion about subject X I would need to be deep inside echo chamber social media network Y. To me, this is the crux of your problem. Social media is like a, well, social space like a bar. Not everyone shares the same opinions, but most of the patrons can at least agree enough to not fight each other, which is sort of an echo chamber since yelling something against the grain would get your ask kicked in a bar. Forums are the place to have a discussion about subject X, since everyone is there to have that discussion. Of course, if you get off topic or snippy the conversation may devolve, but if you stay on topic you can have a nice conversation about subject X.

TacticalCoder 1y ago

[dead]

Levitz 1y ago

>It's not the fault of BlueSky or their users I'd actually argue against this. although I'd probably blame Reddit more. It is now normal for social media to be composed of echo chambers and that's because administrations and users enable and seek that. If someone's to blame more than Twitter/Reddit and their respective users I'm missing it, and on that note, blocklists as a functionality in BlueSky are there precisely to protect echo chambers.

belkinpower 1y ago

The user base is the problem on Bluesky, at least for me. It’s full of well-meaning middle-aged people who don’t understand online discussion etiquette. Any non-political post that gets any sort of traction will get filled up with irrelevant bot-like (but real, as far as I can tell) political meme replies that barely make sense.

matthewdgreen 1y ago
I'm just happy to be somewhere where even the "bot-like" replies aren't actually bots. Impossible on Twitter thanks to the blue-check promotion.