Bluesky Social, the decentralized alternative to traditional platforms like X (formerly Twitter), is grappling with growing criticism as its domain-handle feature becomes a tool for extortion and impersonation.
Designed to link user profiles with custom domains for greater trust and visibility, this feature is now being misused by scammers to exploit prominent individuals, exposing major gaps in Bluesky’s moderation system. This raises critical questions about the viability of decentralized moderation models in managing large-scale platforms.
The Mechanics of Domain-Handle Exploitation
The unique domain-handle feature on Bluesky allows users to integrate their identity with custom domain names, presenting an innovative way to verify and showcase profiles. However, this system has become a double-edged sword.
Scammers have seized the opportunity to impersonate high-profile users by purchasing domains linked to their identities. These domains are then used to create fake profiles that target their real counterparts for extortion.
Bloomberg columnist Conor Sen became a victim of this scheme when a scammer purchased a domain mimicking his name and attempted to sell it back to him for an exorbitant sum. The extortion attempt highlighted not just the dangers of inadequate safeguards but also Bluesky’s struggle to act swiftly against such abuse.
Looks like some guy is trying to do extortion on here:
— Conor Sen (@conorsen.bsky.social) December 17, 2024 at 1:47 AM
[image or embed]
Similarly, entrepreneur Sam Parr was targeted in a scheme involving fake accounts and sockpuppet tactics, where scammers amplified confusion by spreading misinformation about his identity.
When Bluesky moderators intervened, they mistakenly blocked Parr’s legitimate account while leaving the impersonator active, further aggravating the situation.
Hey @bluesky — this guy's impersonating me. Anyway we can shut this down? https://t.co/BeSis6olLi
— Sam Parr (@thesamparr) December 17, 2024
Delayed Moderation and User Frustration
Bluesky’s decentralized moderation model, which relies on user-driven governance, has been a cornerstone of its identity. However, this model has shown significant limitations in addressing the challenges posed by rapid user growth and coordinated scams.
Moderation delays have frustrated victims and raised concerns about the platform’s readiness to handle malicious activity at scale. Critics argue that the lack of a centralized oversight mechanism contributes to inconsistencies and errors in enforcement, as seen in the impersonation scandals.
Related: As BlueSky Growth Soars, So Do User Complaints
At its core, Bluesky’s governance philosophy emphasizes decentralization, granting users and communities the power to define and enforce their own moderation rules. Bluesky representatives emphasize their vision of enabling communities to govern themselves using moderation tools that reflect their specific values and needs.
This model prioritizes autonomy and flexibility, offering tools such as moderation lists and collaborative content filtering. While these features aim to offer a sense of ownership among users, they also introduce fragmentation and inefficiencies, especially when quick, coordinated action is needed.
Technological Tools: A Double-Edged Sword
Bluesky has sought to address moderation challenges through a combination of advanced tools and user-driven processes. Two key components of its moderation infrastructure are Ozone and Thorn’s tools, which play critical roles in identifying and managing harmful content.
Ozone is Bluesky’s collaborative labeling tool that allows groups of moderators to assess flagged content collectively. By leveraging group decisions, Ozone aims to improve the consistency and accuracy of moderation actions while reducing reliance on individual judgment.
Thorn’s tools like the Safer, on the other hand, are designed to proactively detect child sexual abuse material (CSAM) using machine-learning algorithms. These systems minimize the burden on human moderators and ensure that harmful material is addressed quickly.
Related: The Rise of Bluesky: From Twitter Sideproject to Refuge for Fleeing X Users
While these technologies enhance Bluesky’s moderation capabilities, they appear insufficient to counteract the scale and sophistication of scams like domain-handle extortion.
Fragmentation vs. Scalability: The Core Dilemma
The platform’s decentralized model, while innovative, introduces significant scalability challenges. By design, Bluesky allows communities to create and enforce their own moderation policies.
This approach aligns with its ethos of empowering users but creates inconsistencies across the platform. Moderation practices vary widely between communities, making it difficult to address cross-platform issues like impersonation schemes efficiently.
The decentralized nature of Bluesky’s governance also slows down responses to urgent threats. In the case of Conor Sen and Sam Parr, the time required to investigate and resolve impersonation complaints undermined user trust.
Critics argue that introducing a centralized oversight mechanism for high-risk cases, such as identity fraud and extortion, could significantly enhance Bluesky’s ability to maintain safety without compromising its broader commitment to decentralization.
Broader Implications for Decentralized Social Media
Bluesky’s challenges highlight broader questions about the viability of decentralized moderation on large-scale platforms. The platform’s current struggles with impersonation and extortion schemes underscore the difficulties of scaling such a model while ensuring safety and trust.
Other decentralized platforms, such as Mastodon and Matrix, face similar issues but have adopted varying degrees of centralized intervention to address specific challenges. Each Mastodon instance can set its own moderation policies, allowing for localized control over content. Matrix uses a federated identity system, similar to email, which allows for some centralized control at the server level.
The extorsion incidents at Bluesky raise concerns about the long-term sustainability of decentralized governance. Without a unified framework for addressing abuse, Bluesky and similar platforms risk becoming fragmented ecosystems where bad actors can exploit loopholes. The platform’s reliance on user-driven moderation may foster a sense of community ownership, but it also introduces vulnerabilities that centralized systems are better equipped to handle.
