In the ever-evolving landscape of social media, Bluesky emerged as a promising alternative to traditional platforms, championing decentralization and openness. However, recent developments have exposed an unexpected consequence of this approach that deserves closer scrutiny.
The Open API Dilemma
Unlike its competitors such as X (formerly Twitter) or Meta’s platforms, Bluesky provides an open “firehose” API that makes all public posts freely accessible. While this aligns with the platform’s commitment to transparency and decentralization, it has created a situation where user data is being harvested at an unprecedented scale for AI training purposes.
Put another way, this is like having a promise from a bank that THEY won’t take your money directly but they also don’t stop others from using it because they leave the door open.
Recent Evidence
The scope of this issue became apparent when a dataset containing 1 million public Bluesky posts appeared on Hugging Face in late November 2024, an AI development platform. While the initial dataset was removed following public outcry, it highlighted a significant vulnerability in Bluesky’s open architecture. The “good faith” policy was again ignored and this dataset has since grown to include 2 million posts, complete with user identifiers, metadata, and detailed user information.
Data Reality: The Contrast with “Walled Gardens”
Traditional social media platforms maintain strict control over their data, operating as “walled gardens” that limit access to user content and information. While this approach has been criticized for being overly restrictive, it does provide a layer of protection against mass data harvesting for AI training purposes.
To be precise, the dataset currently available contains specific structured information from Bluesky posts:
- The post content (text)
- Creation timestamp
- Author’s decentralized identifier (DID starting with “did:plc:”)
- Post identifier (URI starting with “at://”)
- Image attachment indicators (boolean)
- Reply relationships (parent post URIs)
While platforms like X and Meta also maintain APIs, they operate under strict regulatory frameworks including GDPR, CCPA, and other privacy standards that govern data access and usage. These regulations typically require explicit consent for data collection and place limitations on how user data can be accessed and utilized.
The key difference with Bluesky’s situation isn’t just about having an open API – it’s about the ease of access to structured data without the same level of protective guardrails that regulated platforms have established over time. This creates a unique situation where comprehensive datasets can be created and distributed with relatively little oversight or restriction.
The current situation raises several concerns:
- Lack of Consent: Users posting on Bluesky may not realize their content could be used to train AI models
- Data Permanence: Once harvested, data can be replicated and distributed beyond the platform’s control
- Identity Exposure: The inclusion of user identifiers and metadata in these datasets raises privacy concerns
- Limited Recourse: Users have few options to prevent their content from being used in this way
The Broader Context
This situation emerges at a time when concerns about AI training data and privacy are at the forefront of public discourse. The ease with which Bluesky’s data can be harvested for AI training purposes raises important questions about the balance between open platforms and user privacy.
For nonprofits looking to leave X for a better platform, this situation presents a crucial learning opportunity. The challenge lies in maintaining the benefits of open, decentralized platforms while implementing safeguards against unintended data exploitation.
Potential Solutions
Several approaches could help address these concerns:
- Implementation of user-controlled data usage permissions
- Development of API access restrictions for mass data collection
- Creation of clear guidelines for ethical data usage
- Introduction of user notification systems for data collection
Looking Forward
As social media continues to evolve, platforms must carefully consider how their architectural choices impact user privacy and data security. The Bluesky situation serves as a valuable case study in the unintended consequences of complete openness in platform design.
For users, this development prompts an important question: Is the promise of an open, decentralized platform worth the potential privacy trade-offs? As we continue to navigate these waters, it’s crucial to maintain an ongoing dialogue about how to balance innovation with privacy protection.
The path forward will likely require a nuanced approach that preserves the benefits of open platforms while implementing reasonable safeguards against wholesale data harvesting. Until then, users should remain aware that their public posts on such platforms might serve purposes far beyond their intended social interactions.
This situation reminds us that in the digital age, the price of openness might be higher than we initially anticipated. As we continue to build and participate in these platforms, we must carefully consider whether complete transparency is always the best policy.
Recommendations for Nonprofits on Bluesky
Consider how communications about your stance on current events may have changed overtime. How would a training set of your posts associated with your organization pre 2020 be considered in today’s climate? How much has your language changed, your posisition on key issues changed? Datasets like these will associate this content with your organization in AI’s that are generated from it.
So, please consider the following:
- If You Choose to Use Bluesky:
- Treat all posts as permanently public and scrapable
- Avoid sharing sensitive information
- Create clear social media guidelines for staff
- Regular training on privacy best practices
- Monitor platform developments and policy changes
- Content Strategy:
- Focus on public-facing information only
- Use for community building and general updates
- Keep sensitive discussions on more secure channels
- Maintain presence on established platforms
- Risk Mitigation:
- Regular audit of posted content
- Clear documentation of social media policies
- Staff training on data privacy
- Regular assessment of platform value vs. risks
The Bottom Line: While Bluesky offers interesting opportunities for nonprofits, organizations should carefully weigh the privacy implications against potential benefits. Organizations dealing with sensitive issues or vulnerable populations should be particularly cautious.
Consider using Bluesky as a supplementary channel rather than a primary communication platform, at least until more robust privacy protections are established.
Remember: Your organization’s reputation and stakeholder trust are paramount. Any social media strategy should prioritize protecting these assets while advancing your mission.