Cross contends that while Bluesky’s AT Protocol offers the appealing illusion of decentralization and user ownership-letting individuals move their accounts and data between instances-this is mostly a tech showcase, not a true escape from centralized control. Most users remain on the flagship “bsky.social” instance, which relies heavily on Bluesky Social PBC for data hosting, API relay, and moderation infrastructure. Thus, the promise of a “billionaire-proof” platform remains fragile, especially given that core systems and abuse mitigation still depend on a centralized entity. Moreover, Cross emphasizes that moderation at scale cannot be delegated solely to user-driven “composable moderation.” While empowering on paper, it fails to tackle spam, harassment, extremist content, and coordinated waves of abuse-issues requiring centralized oversight and automated tools. Two high-profile controversies underline this: the unchecked presence of slurs in usernames during Bluesky’s early phase, and the backlash over whether provocateur Jesse Singal should be removed. These cases reveal the tension between a decentralized ethos and the practical necessity for firm moderation standards when millions of users are involved.
In the end, Cross argues that Bluesky is better understood as a stopgap-a “half-way house” for users fleeing toxic platforms like X-but no panacea. Without addressing systemic issues like platform dependency, moderation scale, and the broader harms of social media, newer platforms risk perpetuating the very problems they aim to solve. Her prescription: rather than pinning hopes on alternative platforms, society must fundamentally reduce its overreliance on social media as a tool for public discourse.