Exciting news: We’re taking another step to making Bluesky an open network for public conversations.
Around the end of this month, we’ll release a public web interface. With this, you’ll be able to view posts on Bluesky without being logged in on an account.
Bluesky’s public web interface, coming in a couple weeks, will make posts much more accessible, which will be especially useful for real-time commentary and breaking news.
As a reminder, Bluesky is a public social network, so your posts, likes, etc. have always been publicly accessible through the API.
We designed Bluesky with the openness of the internet in mind. You can think of your profile as a blog on the internet.
For more on data privacy, read our user FAQ:
Please, please introduce the ability to set Bluesky accounts to "private"! Don't make me leave yet another social network because of stalking concerns 😭😫
💯 Privacy should always be the default. If you’re going to make something public over night, you should also allow people to consent to that—or not. Here that means allowing folks to make their accounts private. That shouldn’t be a backlog item but a required/high priority feature for going public.
Every single one of your Bluesky posts is and has been public to everyone, including people you have blocked. They are probably all archived somewhere even if you delete them now.
If that doesn't work for you, there are many other options: Telegram, Signal, etc.
Well, they did make it private first. Making it public sounds pretty easy while adding private controls and dms etc sounds like adding a whole new wing.
In the current architecture no, they're planning to add private account repositories but they wanted federation to be ready first so that they then could design them to work well with federation.
The code is open but the team still develops most stuff in-house. They're focusing on building out the protocol in a way that can be maintained in the long term so features like this take time. (probably should've waited to invite this many people before it's done, though)
Why don't you take donations so you can invest in the sinfrastructure to open membership and allow more users from that other place to come here? Why don't you take donations so you can develop private accounts faster? Why must this be limited to such a small budget?
(I'm not on the staff)
Their funding is not the limit, they have the funding they need for the near future, the limits are rather in manpower (not enough developers to do it all at once) and it's not easy to get newly hired developers up to speed quickly on projects like this.
I'm sure you've read this by now but Bluesky has from the start been a completely public app for anyone who wants to see posts. If you need private, which is totally understandable and valid, I wouldn't hold your breath with Bluesky. That's not a focus.
I never had a problem with my posts on Twitter/X being public. I never made my account private. That said, DMs are nice. Not sure if that means making Bluesky "private".
I've known enough women on Twitter to know their experience is vastly different than mine as a guy. So I get it. But also if you want an experience that's essentially opt-in the people you want, that would be a great thing to offer.
if you think that's "private", you're actually delulu. it may be 'limiting follows' but it's not "private" by any means. just public with extra steps.
if anything this very simple 'everything you do publicly is - surprise - public' stance is great, bc it doesn't make ppl misunderstand own "privacy"
Well, it's a public social ...so. But hang in and follow the main Bsky account. There are some interesting ways you will be able to control things coming out as I understand. It'll be up to you to be your own gatekeeper so to speak for one.
