If by "nontoxic", one means a social media where people complain about the other side, then sure, I guess bluesky is on a great quest.

I don't have a dog in US politics fight, but from my experience on BlueSky, it has become a social network for people who disagree with the current US politics, and most of the content there is debunking/criticizing the other side. Whether you think it's nontoxic is up to you, but history has shown that creating isolated echo-chambers is generally a bad idea.

I suspect the only true way to keep social media non-toxic is simply keep the audience small. Plenty of lovely small subreddits out there. Since bluesky isn't at Twitter volumes yet, it's hard to know if any of their changes will matter in the slightest.

Regardless of your allegiances, if you are all of the same homogenious opinion, how would you even recognize extremism or "toxicity" in your own echo chambers?

I spend maybe 5 mins a day tops on social media(1)...

I'm not particularly invested in Bluesky, but I found it to be the polar opposite of Twitter. It's like everyone who quit the twitter band wagon just went to the twitter clone, as a middle finger move. It's a ying and yang.

I'm still on Twitter, because some people just haven't moved on and I still find their content valid. I vomit a little if I happen to click the sidebar and I want to close my account nearly every visit. I honestly hang by a thread just because some accounts there don't offer an alternative (and Musk removed reading content unauthenticated).

I'm not particularly invested in Mastodon, but I must say that it is where I found the best value per minute. It feels like the natural follow up to Google+. I find it the most 'balanced' between Bluesky and Twitter.

[1] HN excluded, I spend many 5' sessions a day here...

It really helps to have multiple "algorithms" AND allowing everyone to build their own.

https://archive.ph/cH7KU

Much out of touch with reality. That is not possible to control human nature with tech.

Hard for me to tell if I'm in the minority or part of some silent majority, but I don't see much toxic or political content on either site, mostly just art and content related to hobbies I have. I only look at my following feeds, and it's pretty easy to mute a few problem words or phrases. I figure if you spend a lot of time on social media, it's worth it to put in the work to tailor the content you see to your tastes.

It seems the only reliable way to keep social media nontoxic is by doing both of these things:

- Keep the audience small

- Create an echo chamber (intentionally or not)

You need both. Bluesky has both.

Bluesky feels like a small village museum: everyone looks alike, posts alike, and agrees on what to collectively demonize.

For a lot of people pro Palestine views are toxic for a lot of other pro Israel is. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Are any European-based social networks going to pop into existence at this opportune time to get some momentum from the current global western America-is-no-longer-our-friend sentiment?

It's an echo chamber for the left, the same as X is now for the right. Ideas and opinions unchallenged or questioned is what people want.

There's nothing non-toxic about BlueSky. If you deviate at all from the progressive party line you will get death threats.

https://archive.is/WPV8C

Relentlessly excluding wrong thinkers is required for inclusivity.

I'm no Dorsey fan but he was right when he said that Bluesky is recreating Twitter.

You can offer a million feeds but people want a "discover/hot" tab, it's the dopamine slot machine. The median user doesn't build feeds, they go with the main one and at best block the worst offenders.

And thus you are subject to centralization as the chronically-online know all the engagement tactics to dominate the algorithmic feed.

You'll either have MAGA propagandists or left-wing depression culture winning. In the case of Mastodon and Bluesky, it's the latter.

And it's not just the algorithm. Shared block lists will also be massively abused by activists to over-moderate and gate-keep.

No amount of technology can solve a culture war this intense.

I feel bad to say this, but it looks like it failed already to be non toxic. It at least is a lot less toxic than X. For now.

It is X vs BlueSky. It participates in the argument between two groups of people. It does not solve anything.

X is a lot worse, but with a growing number of users, a growing number of negativity will come. It starts on the political parts of the platform, but will trickle down to other parts as well.

By Bluesky being put away as a platform for 'lefties' on X and users on Bluesky saying "Go to your fascist platform X" to other users it essentially participates in dividing people. At least, on the political parts of the platform.

It confirms what an amazing job HN did in the last decade or more. Still a nice community, nice people and quality comments. Although some people will say it is in decline, it is still quite a nice and friendly community.

I still enjoy fintwit and like bluesky for energy related things.

Nontoxic social media isn’t possible. The best you can do is ban politics and non relevant (to topic) discussion.

Also, blue sky is also beholden to rich people like the rest…

I just want to go back to the early days of Facebook, when it was simply a small list of friends I actually knew and enjoyed hanging out with online. No karma, no upvotes or downvotes, no organizations, just people connecting.

Is there even a social platform like that anymore? One that isn’t political, overwhelming, or trying to be everything at once? At this point, it feels like the only real options are private Discord servers or maybe WhatsApp.

I guess the elephant in the room is that any successful platform needs advertising, and once businesses get involved, things tend to spiral with ads everywhere, and eventually, politics creep in too.

A few days ago I said how places like Bluesky only seem to contain posts about how terrible Twitter is, and no actual content of their own. Behold the first post I see:

> The administration is a perfect storm of dumb people who enjoy inflicting pain and are addicted to psychotic cruelty and quadrupling down. It ends in total ruin if you don't impeach him.

Second post:

> you, a rube: “i want my kid to grow up to be a doctor or an engineer or a teacher”

lutnick, a genius: “to make america great again your child will make iphones that they will not be able to afford”

Third (talking about some Trump post or something):

> Again, worth at the last considering the possibility that he’s a malevolent idiot who has no idea what he’s doing.

And so it goes on and on.

I'm all for a "non-toxic" social platform, but I have yet to see one. All the alternatives are mirror images of Twitter and co. — not in that they're not toxic, but that they're toxic but leaning in another direction politically. It's all the same, people calling other people stupid.

Bluesky looks very left wing centered, will make you even more biased to one side and blind for the other. The more you see just one side more extreme (or crazy) you will become.

They were aiming for NON toxic? lol.

Could have fooled me.

Nostr or gtfo.

It’s easier to be nontoxic when you don’t have to confront the evidence contrary to your echo chamber

Bluesky is as bad as Twitter. The conspiracy theories and absurdly-biased takes are equally pronounced. Someone should start a social media site where you get booted for political talk, like you would from a decent gentleman's club.

Some mirrors are cracked, some are polished—but all of them reflect the same world.

The question is: how much can you take in? As much as I despise the owner, it's X all day.

Every time I open bluesky it seems to be full of over-the-top anxiety posting by delusional leftists - last post I saw was telling LGBT people to start storing cash in their mattresses before Trump confiscates their bank accounts. Either that or it's the embattled rear guard of wokism trying to impose increasingly arcane rules on other posters.

That's all less toxic than whatever is happening on twitter these days, but still harmful for the people involved and probably a net negative for society as a whole.

social media is not toxic. humans are toxic. the only social media that is not toxic is google+ because there are no humans there.