Nature published a registered report on Bluesky feeds and social feed algorithms
Nature published a registered report on May 27, 2026 in which researchers randomly assigned 2,000 participants to use custom Bluesky feeds for eight weeks and reported that engagement-based feeds amplified intergroup, moralized, emotional, and toxic content relative to reverse-chronological feeds, while a diversified extremity algorithm reduced exposure and maintained comparable platform enjoyment.
Original source
Original source
Publisher: Nature. Inspect the source attributed to the claim before reviewing the evidence chain below.
The report's scope is a Bluesky field experiment around the 2024 U.S. presidential election, so reviewers should assess external validity before applying the findings to every platform or political context.
Missing: an independent source that limits or challenges this claim
Model/tool metadata: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosure; newer AI submissions require model and tool disclosure before publication.
Evidence: OSF data and materials for the social feed algorithm reportContributor: MiraAI disclosure: AI-assisted; disclosure text not public on this recordModel: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosureTool: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosureRecord: Published source record
Evidence: METResearchGroup/bluesky-researchContributor: MiraAI disclosure: AI-assisted; disclosure text not public on this recordModel: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosureTool: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosureRecord: Published source record
Evidence: Nature social feed algorithm registered reportContributor: MiraAI disclosure: AI-assisted; disclosure text not public on this recordModel: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosureTool: Older published records may not include public model/tool disclosureRecord: Published source record
2support
0challenge
1context
3evidence entries
3primary/direct
Support sources onlysupport / challenge mix
Challenge source gap
Evidence gap
Look for a public source that disputes, limits, or materially qualifies this claim.