Is there any way to embed a i.e. a Blusky feed in a ghost page? I am a huge fan of short format posts for photos, videos and such. especially when out on events, but I would like to use something I can embed on my site as a whole and not just post by post which kind of take away the quick posting idea. Any ideas how to accomplish this?
This looks cumbersome. I think you have to make the post. Make a Bluesky post of that URL. And then go back into your post and edit it to have the URL of the Bluesky post that you made.
I think that part is left out of the explanation, but I could be wrong.
In any case, I would have no idea how to apply CSS or code injection to this section after you do the integration.
On the greater topic of engagement here, I do not know which is best. You have privacy, retention, reliability, and ease of use for admins and for users (i.e., the low barrier to entry for website visitors). A few competing options exist:
- Disqus
- Native commenting on the individual website
- Bluesky embeds
- Wild West[1]
I wonder about the method you see in places such as Jammer’s Reviews. There, you can just write anything you want. You just need to solve easy some word problem that keeps out bots and write the answer along with your post and your identity. (It is an honor system to use the same display name each time.) ↩︎
Thanks for sharing the link! Interestingly, it could be an all code injection solution. Yes, it’s a little bit jumping through hoops (although it could be automated…?), but that might be a nice way to bring Bluesky’s part of the web into Ghost a bit…
I just tried out the Bluesky integration, with and without the per-page code injection with native comment removal. I had the script in the code injection header for all posts. It does not work for Ghost 5.122.0 and Source at least.
I wouldn’t lose sleep over it. Bluesky has a serious problem in the lack of exceptions to blocklists.
If you subscribe to a blocklist that blocks many accounts usefully, then you may also be blocking people you don’t want to block. False positives are a thing. Some people end up on the blocklists of “both sides.” (I have seen how someone can be gay in real life, but on a list for homophobes, another for MAGA, and also one for communists. In my case, I have gotten on a list of British bigots. Because I have no connection to Britain and have never been there, I must presume it is from my following a British journalist who reported on something that someone found objectionable.)
Worse still, the default in several lists is to block, not just label and warn about bad people. (You may not even know about the false positives if you cannot see them.)
For example, I have a labeler for people who use AI images. If someone uses AI images in many posts, I see a label. If your avatar is AI, I see a label. I am very good at AI detection, but I don’t want to go into every profile and see the image larger.
Today, I saw someone whom I follow get that AI warning. Oh man, say it ain’t so!
I look at the person’s profile. The avatar and banner are definitely not AI—not even computer-assisted/photoshopped. I think the aerial map view photo for the banner just looked like AI to the program that labels people. (Yes, I know that faked satellite photos are the latest trend in disinformation. This wasn’t it.) It was a false positive.
If I had implemented Bluesky comments that are linked to a Bluesky account I made posts on and set my lists to block (not warn), then that person would be in a mutual block with me for no good reason.
As appealing as AT Proto is, I cannot even request that Ghost get on this. Bluesky is already aping some of Reddit’s garbage. No, it is not centralized the same way, and no, it does not use upvotes to rank comments. But the blocklist policy encourages groupthink and echo chambers in the same way that many subreddits will ban you for the crime of subscribing to another subreddit or commenting on another subreddit, regardless of what you say. Even if your comment on r/BadThingsHere is to say that the community is wrong for saying XYZ, you are now persona non grata in some other subreddits. For the real-life equivalent, I am not talking about joining the KKK in order to politely bring up suggestions for reform at the next monthly meeting. I am talking about someone seeing a KKK march in town and yelling at the klansmen, “Boo! Your bigotry is not welcome here!” You can say that looking away from the klansmen is the best policy, but would you treat the heckler as equivalent to the klansmen? (I would hope not.)
One thing that may make sense with Bluesky as it is now is to have the comment thread link to a Bluesky account that does nothing but post links to Ghost posts. No text that could flag a list. No follow relationships that could trip up some program.
All of this is to say that the way of integrating Bluesky that I found seems to bring in all of the disadvantages of Bluesky. The unification of comments seems great etc., but it seems impractical to integrate Bluesky comments at this time. We may have to just accept a fragmented system of comments on the site itself (native commenting), a fan forum (a few still exist), and then Reddit, ActivityPub, Bluesky, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Among those last five, I like Bluesky, but it is still just one among seven places.
The only places I have seen to unify all comments are classic-style forums, sites with Disqus, sites with WordPress/Gravatar, and sites with a very low barrier to entry (with just a word problem to screen out bots and the honor system for usernames and no registration). The only reason I place Disqus and Gravatar where I do is because of their timing. No way they could take off from scratch in 2025.