Bluesky, the platform backed by Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey, recently came under fire for not having an automated system in place to prevent users from registering usernames that contained racist slurs. The issue was brought to light when multiple users reported an account with a derogatory term as its handle. Although Bluesky eventually addressed the issue and took down the account, many were disappointed by the lack of an immediate apology from the startup. It seemed that Bluesky was trying to downplay the incident, framing it as a one-off mistake that was quickly rectified.
In response to the backlash, Bluesky issued a statement acknowledging the mistake and taking responsibility for allowing the offensive username to be created. They stated that it was a violation of their community guidelines and admitted that it was their oversight that contributed to the problem. Bluesky assured users that they had made significant investments in their Trust and Safety team and would continue to invest in moderation, feedback, and support systems to scale with the platform’s growing user base. However, Bluesky did not respond to Engadget’s request for comment on the matter.
Interestingly, it was discovered that Bluesky had quietly added the n-word, along with nearly four dozen other ethnic and racial slurs, to a list of “reserved” words just days before issuing their statement. This move raised questions about why they hadn’t implemented a filter for these offensive terms earlier. The delay in taking action and the lack of transparency further fueled the criticism against Bluesky.
The catalyst for Bluesky’s statement seems to be a viral post on LinkedIn by Scott Hirleman, the host of the Data Mesh Radio podcast. Hirleman directly called out Bluesky’s executive team, including CEO Jay Graber, accusing the platform of having a pervasive “anti-blackness problem.” He suggested that if Bluesky didn’t want to be responsible for managing a social media platform, they should separate the company and focus on the protocol while funding another team that genuinely cares about addressing these issues. Hirleman’s post gained significant attention, with over 700 reactions and 50 comments at the time of writing.
Critics of Bluesky found it surprising that a platform with ties to Twitter, a company that has had its own struggles with combating racism and protecting marginalized users, didn’t already have filters in place for such basic offensive terms. They pointed out that Twitter, under Dorsey’s leadership, had often been ineffective in dealing with white supremacist presence on the platform and had missed opportunities to better protect Black people and other marginalized communities.
It is important to note that no social media network is entirely free from racists and offensive content. However, the expectation was higher for Bluesky due to its affiliation with Twitter and the reputation of its co-founder. The incident served as a reminder that even with the best intentions and investments in moderation and safety teams, platforms must remain vigilant in combating hate speech and protecting their users.
In conclusion, the recent incident involving Bluesky and the offensive username highlight the importance of having robust systems in place to prevent the registration of racist slurs and other offensive terms. Although Bluesky eventually addressed the issue and apologized for the oversight, the delayed response and lack of transparency were met with criticism. Moving forward, it is crucial that Bluesky and similar platforms prioritize proactive measures to combat hate speech and create safe environments for their users.