Custom Feeds Are Not Communities — A Design Theory of Feeds and Commons

Beginning

I learned something from Hamakaze no Ryodan, who has deep expertise in creating Bluesky custom feeds.

Feeds collect posts without the poster's consent. When creators use value-laden terms like "noise" or "inappropriate" to filter posts, that's problematic. What's meaningful expression to the poster gets discarded by the collector. This risk runs especially high with political feeds. If you set guidelines or rules, frame them as "collection policy explanations" rather than "community norms."

From this insight, I want to think about what custom feeds really are.

Feeds Are Not Communities

Users unfamiliar with Bluesky tend to see feeds as something to "join." They're viewing them through the frame of Togetter or online communities. But the structure is different.

Togetter gives visibility to those being quoted. Communities have intentional participation. Hashtags let posters classify themselves. Custom feeds have none of these. Posters don't know they're in a feed. Subscribers haven't entered "a place to gather with friends."

Feed creators are not "space managers" but "search condition designers." The responsibility is not "selecting good posts" but "explaining what conditions you collect by." Creators hold no authority over the posters they collect.

Subscribers also need to understand this is "filtered search results." People in a feed don't recognize each other. People viewing the same feed don't see each other either.

So What Can Feeds Become?

Commons.

People reading books on park benches don't talk to each other. They don't know each other's names. But they share the sense of "being in the same park." This isn't community. It's commons.

Isn't this park-like experience what custom feeds provide? By watching people posting about the same topic, you feel "I'm there too." No mutual recognition or intentional participation required.

But unlike parks, feeds have a "designer." The designer decides which posts to collect. If the park manager sorted people — "you can sit, you can't" — it wouldn't be commons anymore.

Whether a feed functions as commons depends on how much the designer restrains value judgment.

The Possibility of Live Event Feeds

Bluesky's 2026 prediction announced Live Event Feeds. Initially I was skeptical. "A moment can become more than the sum of all the people witnessing it" — they're selling shared experience. But the witnesses don't see each other. Are they staging community-like experience while obscuring structural reality?

I reconsidered. Live Event Feeds have ideal conditions.

The live event's time constraint becomes the collection condition. "Was this posted right now?" — a purely mechanical criterion. Little room for designer value judgment.

The witnesses don't see each other. But as commons, that experience genuinely works. Live Event Feeds may become the best proof that feeds can become commons.

Comparison with Misskey Channels

Takeuchi pointed out: "Misskey's channel feature is well-designed."

He's right. Misskey channels are designed around "explicit participation intent." Posters explicitly post "to this channel." They know where they posted.

Bluesky custom feeds are the opposite. Posters post normally. Collection is done by the designer. Posters don't know they're in a feed.

I created Commons Account with the same philosophy as Misskey channels. Participation intent is explicit through mentions. Mechanical reposting only, no value judgment. Separating feed function from community function.

When I proposed this as a standard feature to Bluesky COO Rose in 2023, she looked puzzled. "Can't you just use custom feeds?" This distinction hadn't become a topic inside Bluesky then.

Commons-"esque" Feeds as Solution

Some say "hashtags are enough." True for posters classifying themselves. But Bluesky's hashtag-as-timeline subscription is weak. No visibility as a "space."

What interests me now are feeds like "page42" and "Show me your mug." Participants actively post with specific hashtags or formats. Posters know they're participating. Designers only set the mechanical condition "collect this tag." No value-judgment filtering.

I call these commons-"esque" feeds. Even Bluesky custom feeds can function as commons if "explicit participation intent" becomes the collection condition.

Classification Table

I organize differences between feeds and communities along three axes: participation intent, mutual recognition, and designer value judgment.

Community: Has membership. You enter with participation intent. Managers set norms and decide who enters. An enclosure structure.

Commons Account: Participation intent is explicit through mentions. No mutual recognition, but you share the sense of being in the same space. Designer just mechanically reposts, no value judgment. Like people reading books on park benches.

Commons-"esque" Feed: Participation intent is explicit through specific hashtags or formats. "page42" and "Show me your mug" are examples. Designer only sets the mechanical condition "collect this tag." No value-judgment filtering.

Hashtag: Posters classify themselves. But Bluesky's hashtag-as-timeline subscription is weak. No visibility as a "space." You're in a plaza, but can't see its edges.

Custom Feed (search-based): Posters post normally. Designer's set conditions collect them. Posters don't know they're in a feed. But no designer value judgment either. Like a photograph cropping a city scene. Provides an observation-window experience.

Custom Feed (curated): Designer selects "good posts." Like an exhibition curator. No poster participation intent. What gets selected depends on designer judgment.

Algorithmic recommendations: Different posts appear for each viewer. Machine learning optimizes "for you." Poster's intended context is stripped. Viewer sits in a hall of mirrors reflecting their own preferences.

The Monetization Problem

Let me shift topics.

Reflect's founder put it plainly: VC money forces growth at all costs. Bloated products, acquihires, shuttered startups. That's why they chose subscriptions for sustainability.

Social media differs from note-taking apps. Users provide content and interaction for free. "Why should I pay when I'm the one creating value?" Fair question.

But maintaining the space where that expression happens costs money. Playing in a park is free. Maintaining the park requires taxes.

If you believe in Bluesky's 2026 vision — an internet people choose to build — your options are limited. VC money means growth-at-all-costs. Ad models mean attention economy. Both are exactly what Bluesky criticizes.

The simplest path: pay a "civic tax" to support and sustain this place. The ideal may be a cooperative model. But for now, keep this in mind.

Conclusion

Custom feeds are not communities. But they can become commons.

Whether feeds function as commons depends on participation intent and designer value judgment. Live Event Feeds can become commons because time constraints are the mechanical collection condition. "page42" and "Show me your mug" are commons-"esque" feeds because participation intent is the collection condition.

What separates them is design choice. And sustaining that design requires civic participation.