Bluesky, a social networking platform, is revising its Community Guidelines and other policies to enhance clarity, detail user safety procedures, and refine its appeals process, driven by new global regulations.
These policy adjustments are directly influenced by recently enacted global regulations. The U.K.’s Online Safety Act (OSA), the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), and the U.S.’s TAKE IT DOWN Act have necessitated comprehensive updates to Bluesky’s operational frameworks. These legislative mandates require platforms to implement stricter content moderation, user protection measures, and transparency protocols, thereby shaping the scope and nature of Bluesky’s revised policies.
Beyond regulatory compliance, Bluesky is actively endeavoring to influence its community’s character and user conduct. This initiative seeks to foster a more respectful and less self-serious environment among its users. This strategic direction follows observations and media commentary indicating a predisposition within the community towards solemnity, a focus on negative news dissemination, and a perceived deficiency in humor and intellectual diversity. The platform aims to cultivate interactions that are more agreeable and considerate among its user base.
As part of its regulatory adherence, Bluesky has updated its Terms of Service. This update specifically addresses compliance with various online safety laws and regulations globally. A key component of this revision is the requirement for age assurance in jurisdictions where it is legally mandated. For example, the U.K.’s Online Safety Act, which became effective in July, now necessitates that platforms hosting adult content implement age verification procedures. Consequently, Bluesky users located within the United Kingdom are now required to undergo age verification, which involves methods such as facial scanning, uploading a valid identification document, or providing payment card details to access the platform.
The processes for submitting complaints and pursuing appeals on the Bluesky platform have been significantly elaborated. The platform has introduced a more detailed and structured approach to how users can address grievances and challenge moderation decisions. This expanded detail aims to provide users with a clearer understanding of the steps involved in navigating these procedures, enhancing transparency and accessibility within the complaint and appeal system.
A notable addition to the updated policies involves an “informal dispute resolution process.” This mechanism commits Bluesky to engaging in direct phone conversations with users to discuss their disputes prior to initiating any formal dispute proceedings. Bluesky has indicated its belief that a substantial majority of disagreements can be resolved effectively through these informal discussions, thereby potentially reducing the need for more structured and formal arbitration or legal processes. This approach contrasts with the practices observed at larger social networks, where users often report being banned without clear explanations and face difficulties in establishing direct communication with company representatives to address their concerns.
Bluesky has also stated its intention to permit users to pursue certain claims of harm through judicial channels, rather than exclusively through arbitration. This provision represents a departure from the common practice among many technology companies, which frequently prefer to resolve disputes outside of traditional court systems. By allowing users access to court proceedings for specific harm claims, Bluesky is offering an alternative dispute resolution pathway that provides users with broader legal recourse.
Users of the Bluesky platform are invited to provide feedback on the proposed revisions to the Community Guidelines. These guideline changes are scheduled to become effective on October 15, 2025, following the completion of the designated feedback period. This consultative approach allows the community to contribute to the final iteration of the rules governing user conduct and content on the platform.
The revised Community Guidelines are structured around four core principles: Safety First, Respect Others, Be Authentic, and Follow the Rules. These foundational principles are designed to inform Bluesky’s moderation decisions, determining whether specific content should be labeled, removed, or if circumstances warrant the suspension or permanent banning of user accounts. In certain severe instances, these guidelines also dictate when the company may report user activities to law enforcement authorities. The framework provides clear directives for content evaluation and enforcement actions.
Bluesky’s established rules encompass a range of common-sense policies. These prohibit the promotion of violence or harm, including self-harm and animal abuse. The guidelines also forbid the posting of illegal content and material that sexualizes minors, even in role-play scenarios. Harmful actions such as doxxing and other forms of non-consensual personal data sharing are explicitly disallowed. Furthermore, the policies restrict the dissemination of spam or malicious content, alongside other detrimental behaviors, to maintain a safe and functional environment for all users.
The updated guidelines include specific provisions for journalistic content, parody, and satire. Journalists engaged in “factual reporting” are permitted to post content concerning criminal acts, violence, mental health issues, and aspects of online safety. This also extends to topics such as warnings about potentially harmful online viral challenges. These allowances acknowledge the distinct nature and public interest value of these forms of communication, distinguishing them from general user content in terms of moderation application.
One area where Bluesky may face challenges relates to the precise interpretation of terms such as “threat,” “harm,” or “abuse” within its policies. The guidelines specify that users must “respect others” by refraining from posting, promoting, or encouraging “hate, harassment, or bullying.” An example provided within the policy is the prohibition of exploitative deepfakes and content that “incites discrimination or hatred.” This explicitly includes posts that target individuals or groups based on characteristics such as “race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, or other protected traits.” This aspect of policy enforcement has historically presented difficulties for Bluesky, particularly in early periods when moderation decisions reportedly strained its relationships with the Black community. In a separate instance, the platform’s perceived failure to adequately moderate certain content also led to discontent within the trans community. More recently, the company has experienced criticism alleging a left-leaning bias, characterized by rapid criticism, hostile replies, and a general deficiency of humor within the community.
The original concept behind Bluesky aimed to empower users with tools to curate their desired community environment. This included not only standard blocking and reporting functionalities but also features like subscribable block lists and opt-in moderation services tailored to individual values. However, despite these offerings, Bluesky users have largely demonstrated a preference for the application itself to manage a substantial portion of content moderation. This preference has frequently manifested in user criticism directed at the platform’s trust and safety department when moderation decisions were perceived as unfavorable or inconsistent with user expectations.
In addition to the Community Guidelines, Bluesky’s Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy have undergone comprehensive rewriting. These revisions were undertaken to ensure compliance with global legal frameworks pertaining to user rights, data transfer protocols, data retention and deletion procedures, content takedown processes, and transparency reporting requirements. Both the revised Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy are scheduled to come into effect on September 15, 2025. Unlike the Community Guidelines, there is no designated feedback period for either of these policy documents.
