Apparently Bluesky lets you require a sign in to view a post

If it was BlueSky forcing sign in, I would agree. But this is giving the user control of their own posts. I don't really see a problem with it tbh.

Yep. It was a feature people kept on shouting at the devs that they needed. The devs kept trying to explain how an open protocol works and that everything they post is open. But no one seemed to get it so they just added this feature with the caveat it only works for people using the Bluesky PBC’s app and website.
It does not give users "control", its an illusion to think that something posted on the internet can be controlled. The only reason this exists is to get people to register an account. Thats it.
- There are valid reasons to restrict the visibility of your content to registered users.
  I post nudes on a certain site, where I have the ability to choose who can see my pictures. The options are: everyone, friends, registered users, and VIP members (paid subscription). Nearly all of my pictures are set to be visible only to registered users, with the spicier ones restricted to VIP members. My reason for this has nothing to do with trying to force people to create an account, let alone pay for a subscription. I have no illusions about my content being completely safe from outsiders. I simply want to create a small amount of friction to prevent complete randoms from easily accessing my content when they have no personal investment in the site. I see putting myself out there as the price I pay for free access to everyone else’s profiles. If you want to see my pictures, I expect you to do the same. I’m taking the risk of potentially being recognized - I expect you to take that risk too.
- I don't think this is entirely accurate. I understand what you're saying, that a determined person can relatively easily bypass this hurdle and view the content.
  Still, I can see value in creating a hurdle. It's not unsurpassable, but it requires energy to pass it. And sometimes that's enough to not be the low hanging fruit. Maybe the poster wants to avoid trolls, or they don't want that particular content to be easily scraped.
I mean that's why it's "mildly infuriating", it doesn't enrage me as much as Twitter requiring a sign in for the whole site.
- Fair point :-)

The owner of an account can set individual posts or their entire account to be visible only to signed-in sessions. I see it used by certain artists that moved from twitter, and consider it an overall good feature.

Yeah I don't see it as a problem when the users control access to their own posts.
It's when they require a sign in to see anything, it's a problem.

Could it just be any post that is 'friends only' or if the user has blocked anyone?

Sounds like it's not systemic like Twitter or Reddit requiring logins for virtually anything.

They require login for all "sensitive" posts, so yes it is a systemic issue. For anyone annoyed by this, just use LibRedirect and enable forwarding of BlueSky to the 3rd party web client https://skyview.social/
- Good to know, thanks!
twitter is fucked and requires a login for everything, but reddit seems to work fine without a login.
- Unless you’re on a vpn, in which case the whole site is restricted unless you sign in.

Yeah, if that's the person making the choice, that's a good thing

Mastodon has followers-only posts, too, you know?

Wouldn't that be unsearchable for non followers? I never played with the feature
- that's what quiet public is; it removes it from discovery and global feeds.

Technically, all posts are public by design. This "sign-in required" is just a flag on the post asking clients "please don't show me to everyone," and app developers could ignore it.

This was added when they opened up to the public as a compromise to users. You can set it per account in privacy proof settings (I personally do it so anti trans people can't scrape my posts)

Apps implementing the API don't always have to follow it, though. (They even say this when you set the option)

whats wrong with it? i mean its up to the author if they want to make them exclusive to signed in users

Not the OP, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I do think it's a little odd given that the security is at the client and not in the protocol. As others have mentioned already, if you use skyview.social, you can see the posts anyway.
- oh then i guess useless feature for now

I'm not saying Bluesky sucks, but this is childish.

Bluesky was started by the same guy who started Twitter, and is only federated in concept.

It was never meant to be "Twitter but better". It was always meant to be "How can we make the most money off fleeing twitter users?". There's a lot of overlap between the money making and being better, but it's incidental to the real goal. Any claims otherwise are pure marketing.

Bluesky was started by the same guy who started Twitter, and is only federated in concept.
He didn't really start Bluesky; he started the exploring the Bluesky protocol as a research initiative while at Twitter to try and explore how to make Twitter decentralized. Jay Graber was hired as the CEO and incorporated it as an independent company.

Bluesky is on the way to become darksky