Maybe it'll all be the usual grim broken carnival barking shit when you have an account too, but for right now we're all twirling in a teacup here.
No, but it is a reason why the quality of the current users has been allowed to be quite high so far.
> The "repugnant" or "normals" will flock in all the same, if the platform ever takes off.
They will try, but by then the moderation systems, feed/algo defaults, various content policies, etc. will have hopefully been ironed out, ideally negating many/most of the negatives of letting them all in without those things. This is being very heavily worked on right now, transparently and with input from the current users, and is a big reason to not yet open the floodgates.
Bsky has already had its first few Nazis get ahold of an invite code and show up and start doing their thing. The first time it happened, it took a while for everyone to figure out how to handle it and what the policies were and much of the community was irate. After that, they knew how to handle it and would do so before there was time for these users to wreak much havoc.
It's inevitable that eventually the floodgates will open and weirdos will show up. But that's not what really matters. What matters is whether or not they actually are successful at bothering everyone else. Launching with things in place to negate that is, for many people, the whole ballgame.
Historical definition: a German political party that led Germany to destruction and performed mass genocide
That tends to happen when there's an exclusive club, people want to peak in. It is, in no way, an indication of the quality of the platform.
> the waves of repugnant users or miserably overbaked features.
That tends to happen when there's hardly any users at all. The "repugnant" or "normals" will flock in all the same, if the platform ever takes off.
> the utter lack of ads is delightful.
That tends to happen in all pre-revenue startups. Twitter was ads-free for years.