Bluesky

Key Findings

• Political: Bluesky publicly said in May 2025 that people in Gaza and other crisis areas should be able to share experiences and seek support; later reporting documented repeated account actions against some Gaza fundraisers, while the available record does not establish discriminatory intent or differential enforcement.^{1, 2}
• Economic: The Bluesky Social application was available through Apple’s Israeli App Store, but that availability does not establish an Israeli office, workforce, tax registration, local revenue, supplier, settlement customer, or settlement-related sale.³
• Digital: Reported spam labels, deactivations, and deletions affecting Gaza-fundraiser accounts support a narrow account-level digital-harm finding, while the reviewed materials identified no Israeli government, military, intelligence, settlement, Project Nimbus, Israeli-R&D, or Israeli-surveillance relationship.^{2, 4, 5}
• Not found: No public evidence identified of Bluesky defence contracting, military-specific products, physical supply or logistics activity, or operations in settlements or occupied territory.^{6, 7}

Target Profile

Key Facts:

• Bluesky formed as an independent public-benefit LLC in late 2021 and converted to a public-benefit C corporation in July 2023.^{14, 15}
• It was initially funded by Twitter, but says its Twitter service agreement ended in late 2022.¹⁴
• Announced funding includes a $15 million Series A in October 2024 and a $100 million Series B in April 2025; public announcements do not disclose investor ownership percentages or control rights.^{16, 17}

Executive Summary

Bluesky Social, PBC operates a social-media service and an ecosystem of AT Protocol services, including relays, a Bluesky-operated Personal Data Server, AppView services, feeds, and moderation infrastructure.^{10, 11} Its available public materials describe a civilian social-network and protocol service, not a defence, construction, logistics, weapons, or physical-infrastructure business.^{6, 7}

The principal documented Israel/Palestine-facing issue concerns political and digital platform governance. In May 2025, Bluesky Safety stated that people in Gaza and other crisis areas need platforms to share their experiences and seek support, and that the company was committed to ensuring they could be heard.¹ Reporting later described Gaza fundraisers who said accounts had repeatedly been labelled as spam or deleted. Bluesky reportedly referred to conduct contrary to its Community Guidelines, encouraged fundraising through “authentic accounts,” and said that an appeals process existed.² Available evidence includes reported user accounts and a civil-society assessment of likely spam and moderation-circumvention triggers; it does not include authenticated account-level enforcement notices, matched comparisons, Gaza-specific outcome data, or evidence sufficient to establish discriminatory intent or differential enforcement.^{2, 18}

The economic nexus is limited in the audited record. Bluesky’s app appeared in Apple’s Israeli App Store. That establishes storefront availability, but not a local Bluesky entity, office, employee base, tax registration, revenue stream, supplier relationship, settlement customer, or settlement-specific sale.³ Audits found no public evidence of Israeli controlling ownership, direct investment in Israel or occupied territory, Israeli state financing, Israeli procurement, settlement economic activity, Israel-attributable revenue, or Israeli tax payments.^{19, 20}

The digital and military audits likewise found no public evidence of an Israeli government or security deployment, contract, licence, account, Project Nimbus participation, Israeli data-residency arrangement, Israeli R&D centre, or Israeli surveillance-technology supplier relationship.^{4, 5} No public evidence identified links Bluesky to Israeli defence procurement, military-tailored products, defence primes, weapons systems, physical logistics, settlements, or occupied-territory infrastructure.^{6, 7} These are bounded, document- and search-scoped findings; they do not disprove unpublished records, undisclosed holdings, or unreviewed activity.

Under the fixed, human-vetted V6.5 assessment, Bluesky receives a BRS of 210, placing it in Tier D (Moderate Complicity). The result is driven primarily by the Political score, reflecting the documented Gaza-fundraiser moderation controversy and incomplete evidence concerning account-level outcomes, rather than a verified military, settlement, or Israeli state-security relationship.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

Bluesky describes itself as an independent Public Benefit Corporation operating a social-media service and the AT Protocol ecosystem.^{10, 12} Its public account of formation states that Twitter initiated the underlying project, nominated Jay Graber to lead it in 2021, and initially funded the separately formed Bluesky entity; Bluesky says the former Twitter service agreement ended in late 2022.¹⁴

The available descriptions identify AT Protocol services including relay infrastructure, Personal Data Servers, AppView services, feeds, labelling, and moderation services. Bluesky’s technical and network-service materials characterize these as general social-network and protocol functions.^{10, 11} Public routing records identify the Bluesky Social, PBC ASN as United States-registered, and public endpoint documentation identifies U.S.-East and U.S.-West Jetstream instances. Neither source establishes complete physical data-centre locations, every traffic route, backups, third-party Personal Data Server locations, or legal-access arrangements.^{24, 25}

Bluesky’s public privacy policy uses generic references to “parent or subsidiary companies” and “other Bluesky companies,” but does not name an affiliate, subsidiary, parent, jurisdiction, or ownership structure.²⁶ Its FAQ does not publish a subsidiary register, cap table, shareholder list, or beneficial-owner disclosure. Consequently, a complete group-attribution assessment cannot be made from the public primary corporate record supplied to the audits.¹²

No public evidence identified of an Israeli subsidiary, branch, franchisee, office, R&D centre, reseller, tax-registration record, data centre, warehouse, government contract, or settlement operation. The Apple Israeli storefront listing establishes app availability only and does not alter that finding.^{3, 19}

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Mechanism of Involvement

No public evidence identified in targeted, publicly indexed searches of Israeli Ministry of Defense, IDF, prison, police, border-force, procurement, tender, contract, supplier, export-control, customs, and shipment records for Bluesky Social, PBC or a verified controlled affiliate in connection with physical goods, infrastructure, servicing, logistics, or a security beneficiary.⁶

The technical record describes social-network infrastructure, feeds, hosting, moderation, and AT Protocol network services. It does not describe ruggedised, tactical, military-specified, targeting, weapons-integrated, or other purpose-built kinetic products.^{7, 10}

No public evidence identified of Bluesky supplying Israeli defence primes; providing base support, telecommunications, transport, fuel, freight, facilities, or logistics to Israeli security installations; or acting as a weapons, munitions, strategic-platform, or critical-subsystem supplier.^{6, 7}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that Bluesky is a civilian social-network and protocol provider, not a defence contractor, weapons manufacturer, construction firm, or logistics supplier.^{6, 7} The audits identified no physical supply activity from which to infer a military relationship.

These findings are limited to publicly indexed records returned by completed searches. They do not prove that unpublished procurement, licensing, shipment, or end-user records do not exist.⁶

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Mechanism of Involvement

Bluesky operates AT Protocol infrastructure, including relay services, a Bluesky-operated Personal Data Server, AppView services, public endpoints, and moderation-related services.^{10, 11, 24} Its privacy materials describe processing of public posts, unencrypted direct messages, IP-derived general location, device and network identifiers, and usage data; Bluesky states that unencrypted direct messages may be accessed for trust-and-safety purposes.^{26, 27} Its reported automated rules engines are described as spam-detection tools used alongside human moderation review.²⁸

Reported first-person accounts describe Bluesky spam labels, deactivations, and deletions affecting two named Gaza fundraisers, including repeated account loss over six months.² This supports a limited account-level digital-harm result because Bluesky operated the moderation system, but the evidence does not establish audience reach, discriminatory intent, a matched comparison, or a systemic enforcement pattern.^{2, 28}

No public evidence identified that Bluesky data is stored in, routed through, processed in, or legally accessible from Israel, or via an Israeli-controlled provider.⁵ No public evidence identified of an Israeli government contract, account, licence, deployment, Israeli military or intelligence use, Project Nimbus participation, Israeli sovereign-cloud service, Israeli R&D operation, or Israeli-origin surveillance, biometric, cybersecurity, or enterprise-technology vendor relationship.^{4, 5}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the reviewed evidence shows a general-purpose, distributed social-network service, with identified U.S.-observed network infrastructure and no documented Israeli state, military, intelligence, settlement, or surveillance relationship.^{5, 24, 25}

However, publicly visible endpoints and ASN observations do not establish all physical hosting, backup, third-party Personal Data Server, routing, processing, or legal-access locations. Bluesky’s notices allow international transfers but do not identify destinations, hosting providers, or a complete subprocessor register.^{5, 26, 27}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Mechanism of Involvement

Apple’s Israeli App Store listed the Bluesky Social application and identified its developer as “Bluesky PBLLC.”³ This is the only affirmative Israel-linked market fact established in the economic audit.

Bluesky announced financing rounds led by Blockchain Capital in 2024 and Bain Capital Crypto in 2025, with other named participants including True Ventures, Automattic, Alumni Ventures, and others.^{16, 17} Public disclosures do not establish investor ownership percentages, control rights, Israeli ownership, Israeli state ownership, or Israel-linked investment activity by Bluesky or its named principals.^{12, 19}

No public evidence identified of Israeli suppliers, imports, distributors, local procurement, Israeli offices, workforce, tax registration, Israel-attributable revenue, Israeli investments, sovereign-debt underwriting, settlement customers, or sales attributable to settlements.^{19, 20}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that storefront availability alone does not demonstrate a locally established business operation or contribution to settlement activity. The audit found no documented Israeli branch, local workforce, revenue, tax payment, supplier, reseller, government customer, settlement customer, or settlement-specific sale.^{3, 19, 20}

The limitation is disclosure: Bluesky does not publish audited financial statements, geographic revenue, tax records, customer lists, supplier lists, workforce figures, or a cap table. A searched absence does not resolve undisclosed minority investments, private holdings, or unpublished commercial arrangements.^{12, 19}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Mechanism of Involvement

Bluesky Safety’s May 2025 statement said people in Gaza and other crisis areas need platforms to share their experiences and seek support, and that Bluesky was committed to ensuring they could be heard.¹ In reporting on Gaza-fundraiser account actions, Bluesky reportedly cited conduct contrary to its Community Guidelines, encouraged fundraising through authentic accounts, and stated that it maintained an appeals process.²

The audit documents reported first-person accounts from Gaza fundraisers who said accounts were repeatedly labelled as spam or deleted. One cited account holder reported that nearly all of more than 80 accounts created over six months had been deactivated; another reported dozens deleted.² MADR assessed likely triggers as spam and moderation-circumvention conduct, including repeated fundraising-only posting, mass direct messages or tags, account recreation, and reposting from suspended accounts. This was an assessment of likely triggers, not a published account-specific Bluesky enforcement notice.¹⁸

Bluesky’s published policies prohibit spam, fraudulent fundraising, deceptive practices, and moderation circumvention, and describe human moderators, automated systems, and user-selected labelling services.²⁹ Its transparency reporting does not provide Gaza-, Palestine-, fundraising-, or region-specific enforcement outcomes. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish differential enforcement against equivalent Palestinian or pro-Palestinian conduct, though it cannot rule it out.^{2, 28}

No public evidence identified of Bluesky corporate lobbying, PAC activity, anti-BDS advocacy, donations to the IDF, FIDF, JNF/KKL, settlement organizations, military-welfare entities, Israeli or Palestinian state partnerships, or operations in occupied territory.^{30, 31}

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest defence is that the reported Gaza-fundraiser actions occurred within a platform-wide anti-spam and anti-fraud moderation system, with published appeals mechanisms and documented false-positive risk. Bluesky reported both automated and human moderation, acknowledged that high-certainty automated actions could create false positives, and provided for human review and appeals.^{22, 29} A documented non-Gazan false-positive involving a JD Vance account was promptly reversed, although that incident concerned impersonation rather than fundraising and cannot establish comparable treatment for Gaza fundraisers.³²

The counterweight is that reported fundraiser experiences are serious and were not resolved by public, authenticated account-level records in the supplied evidence. No documented Gaza-fundraiser reinstatement or reversal was identified, nor was a reliable matched comparison of enforcement rates, appeal outcomes, response times, or visibility effects for equivalent Gaza and non-Gaza conduct.^{2, 28}

Named Entities and Evidence Map

BDS-1000 Score

Method: V6.5

• V_MAX: 2.34 Avg_OTHERS: 0.89
• BRS Score: 210 Tier: D (Moderate Complicity)

V_MAX is Political at 2.34, reflecting the documented Gaza-fundraiser moderation controversy and its direct political salience, while preserving the audit’s unresolved evidentiary limits. Digital 1.50 reflects the same reported account-level enforcement as a narrow digital result, without asserting systemic censorship or Israeli-state involvement. Economic 1.18 reflects current third-party app-store availability rather than a material local operation, and the evidence record does not substantiate military contracting. V6.5 is scale-free, evidence-only, and human-vetted; it does not treat searched absences, unverified allegations, divested activity, or wrong-entity attribution as proof.

Methodology Note

• This dossier compiles only the supplied Military, Digital, Economic, and Political audit records; factual statements are limited to their documented findings.
• Scores are evidence-only and scale-free: Impact assesses activity type, M assesses scale, and P assesses directness.
• “No public evidence identified” means the stated audit searches and reviewed sources did not locate supporting public evidence; it is not proof that unpublished information cannot exist.
• The temporal rule mitigates divested or exited operations; the record here identified no qualifying Israeli economic or military activity continuing after the stated post-2024 thresholds.¹⁹
• Entity attribution is not transitive: investor, director, historic-association, and generic-affiliate references do not establish control, ownership, or responsibility absent documented links.^{12, 23}
• Settlement operation, where documented, would be assessed in both Economic and Political. No public evidence identified of Bluesky settlement operations or settlement-specific sales.^{19, 30}