Bluesky’s latest update adds chat reactions and an Explore page, similar to X

Tech Crunch - Apr 10th, 2025

Bluesky, the open social network, is launching a new software version that introduces chat reactions in direct messages and revamps its search page as 'Explore.' These features are inspired by X, formerly known as Twitter, which allowed users to react with emojis since 2020. Bluesky users can now similarly click an emoji button next to a message to add a reaction, choosing from a set of default emojis or selecting any emoji of their choice. The revamped Explore page helps users connect with trending topics, suggested accounts, and Starter Packs, enhancing user engagement and personalization.

With a growing user base of over 34 million, Bluesky's new features aim to make the platform more appealing to former X users by providing familiar tools for interaction. The Explore page offers curated content suggestions and trending topics, like timely events and popular communities, marked with indicators such as 'New' or 'Hot.' These updates, driven by recent team hires like designer Darrin Loeliger, could attract users seeking a platform similar to X but with unique customization options, thus increasing user retention and engagement on Bluesky.

X (Formerly Twitter) User Engagement Bluesky Social Media Features Paul Frazee Darrin Loeliger Chat Reactions Explore Page Social Network Trends

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a clear and timely overview of Bluesky's new features, offering a comparison to X that contextualizes these updates within the broader social media landscape. While it is well-written and accessible, the lack of explicit sourcing and transparency about the basis for its claims affects its credibility. The article is moderately balanced and engages with public interest topics relevant to social media users, though its impact on broader societal or policy discussions is limited. Overall, it serves as an informative piece for those interested in platform developments but would benefit from more detailed sourcing and alternative perspectives.

Accuracy

The article presents factual claims about Bluesky's new features, such as chat reactions and the revamped Explore page. These claims align with known updates in social networking applications and are likely accurate given the standard progression of features in the industry. However, verification is needed for specific details such as Bluesky's user base size (over 34 million users) and the exact functionality of the new features. The article's comparison to X's features is plausible, but it would benefit from direct confirmation from Bluesky or X to ensure precision.

Balance

The article maintains a fairly balanced perspective by focusing on the new features of Bluesky without overt bias or favoritism. It compares these features to those of X, which provides context but could be seen as favoring Bluesky by suggesting it is catching up with or emulating a well-known platform. There is a lack of alternative viewpoints, such as user feedback or expert opinions on the impact of these features, which could have enriched the narrative.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language, making it easy for readers to follow the development of Bluesky's new features. The logical flow from feature descriptions to comparisons with X helps maintain reader engagement. However, the lack of detailed sourcing may leave some readers with unanswered questions about the veracity of certain claims.

Source quality

The article lacks explicit references to primary sources or direct statements from Bluesky representatives, which affects its credibility. While it cites Bluesky CTO Paul Frazee, this is not supported by a direct quote or source link. The reliance on general knowledge about social media trends and features suggests a moderate level of reliability, but the absence of authoritative sources or data diminishes the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose its sources or the basis for its claims, which affects transparency. There is no explanation of the methodology used to gather information, nor are any potential conflicts of interest revealed. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the impartiality of the reporting or understand the context behind the claims.