For the past few days, my Bluesky feed has been increasingly filled with mysterious posts about waffles.
The back-and-forth seems to have started with a tongue-in-cheek post by Jerry Chen lampooning a form of social media sanctimoniousness that’s become all too recognizable on Bluesky: “(bluesky user bursts into Waffle House) OH SO YOU HATE PANCAKES??”
Bluesky CEO Jay Graber quoted this approvingly adding, “Too real. We’re going to try to fix this. Social media doesn’t have to be this way.” Another user then asked, “have y’all banned Jesse Singal yet or” to which Graber simply replied “WAFFLES!”
Singal’s presence on Bluesky was a flashpoint last year – while Bluesky built an early reputation as a haven for trans users, Singal has been widely criticized for his writing on trans issues. A Change.org petition arguing that Singal violated the social network’s community guidelines and calling on bluesky to ban him received more than 28,000 signatures, and he was the most-blocked user on Bluesky until Vice President JD Vance surpassed him.
In a follow-up post Graber wrote,”Harassing the mods into banning someone has never worked. And harassing people in general has never changed their mind.” She also alluded to the controversy by posting a nudge-nudge wink-wink photo of waffles as did Singal.
Users continue to respond with waffle-themed posts, memes, and GIFs. It’s a bizarre, yet captivating, example of how a social media platform is grappling with issues of content moderation, harassment, and free speech – all while communicating through breakfast food.
Bluesky Faces criticism Over Handling of user Concerns and Decentralization Focus
Bluesky,the decentralized social media platform founded by Jack Dorsey,is facing increasing scrutiny regarding its response to user criticism,particularly from members of its early community who identify as marginalized. The platform’s leadership, specifically CEO Jay Graber, is being accused of prioritizing the underlying protocol over the needs and concerns of its user base, leading some to question whether the company intends to distance itself from the social submission itself.
Early Promise and Shifting Priorities
Bluesky initially attracted a significant following of users seeking an alternative to mainstream social media platforms, particularly those who had experienced harassment or censorship elsewhere. This early community, including many marginalized users, was instrumental in shaping the platform’s initial culture. However, as Bluesky has grown, concerns have arisen that its leadership is less interested in actively managing the social dynamics of the platform and more focused on developing the decentralized protocol, AT Protocol, upon which it is built.
This shift is exemplified by Graber’s responses to recent controversies. Rather than directly addressing user concerns, she has, at times, responded with seemingly dismissive posts, such as those referencing waffles, as noted by several observers. Graber has consistently emphasized the decentralized nature of the AT Protocol, stating in a recent interview with Wired that she resists identifying Bluesky with any specific group or political leaning, instead highlighting the protocol’s ability to allow users to build their own alternatives. [Wired]
User Concerns and Accusations of Betrayal
Some users believe this focus on decentralization represents a betrayal of the community that helped build Bluesky. Katie Tightpussy, a user on the platform, speculated that Bluesky leadership may be seeking to spin off the application to return to a focus on protocol development, effectively abandoning the challenges of managing a large social media platform. [Bluesky Post] This sentiment reflects a broader concern that the company is prioritizing the interests of its developers over the needs of its users.
Graber has responded to the current controversy by posting about “decentralization acceleration” and emphasizing that Bluesky provides the tools for users to run their own moderation. [Bluesky post] She also highlighted the company’s “upcoming healthy discourse project” as an attempt to address problematic interaction dynamics on the platform. [Bluesky Post]
A Foreseen Conflict?
Interestingly, the potential for this conflict appears to have been anticipated by Graber herself.According to reporting in The New Yorker, Bluesky’s founding documents reportedly described the company as a “future adversary” to the platform it created, suggesting a planned separation between the development of the protocol and the management of the social application. [The New Yorker]
The current situation raises questions about the future of Bluesky and its commitment to the community that helped launch it. Whether the platform can successfully navigate thes tensions and fulfill its promise of a decentralized,user-controlled social media experience remains to be seen.