That’s the question my collaborators and I asked over 1,000 people on social media as part of a broader research project on Twitter migration. Responses ranged from the profane to the poetic, but one common theme was that despite its significant flaws, Twitter at its best was truly great … until it wasn’t.
“The world is a better place for it having existed, and a better place now that it’s gone.”
“It takes so little to destroy so much.”
“I will miss it for what it could be in its best moments, but I will be happy that we can finally move on to healthier spaces.”
For many, it was time to leave in the hopes of finding greener pastures.
Since Elon Musk purchased Twitter, now branded as X, in October 2022, there have been reports of mass migration from the platform, and much ink was spilled – including some by me, a researcher who studies online communities – speculating where those users might land.
The decentralized social network Mastodon attracted a lot of early attention, gaining a significant influx of users in the months following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. In July 2023, Meta’s microblogging platform Threads gained 30 million users in its first day. Other Twitter alternatives appeared in 2023, some of which have chugged along with relatively small user bases, while others have already shut down. But these days, all the buzz seems to be about Bluesky.
Looking for the familiar
Bluesky was created in 2019 as a research project within Twitter led by then-CEO Jack Dorsey. It eventually severed ties with Twitter and became an independent company following Musk’s acquisition. The goal with Bluesky was to build a decentralized standard for social media that Twitter could eventually adopt. In that way, Bluesky is comparable to Mastodon in that they both allow for the creation of different servers that interact, and users can move their data and network between servers.
But what does all this mean for your experience on Bluesky? If you are confused by – or just don’t care about – centralized versus decentralized social media, Bluesky won’t seem very different. It looks and feels a lot like Twitter. Nearly all of Bluesky currently operates from a single server, bsky.social, which means that you don’t have to choose a server when you sign up and your experience is contained there. Though Bluesky provides the option for users to host their own server and therefore store and control their own data, most users will experience what they’re accustomed to on traditional, centralized social media.
My previous research on platform migration revealed how leaving a platform requires both a compelling reason and an immediate viable alternative. Musk’s acquisition of Twitter was a compelling reason for many users, and there have been a number of policy, design and cultural changes since that have compelled even more users to jump ship.
As for an immediate alternative in November 2022, Mastodon had a significant head start because Bluesky hadn’t launched, and when it did in February 2023 it remained invitation-only for about a year. Threads didn’t launch until July 2023. Though Mastodon has a very dedicated user base, particularly among people who share a commitment to decentralization and user autonomy, there are a number of factors that have limited widespread adoption.
My colleagues and I found that even among those on Mastodon, knowing how to find and join a specific server was the biggest challenge, and this has been enough of a barrier to keep many people off the social network entirely. Research on the migration of “Academic Twitter,” a broad community of academics connected on Twitter, also revealed that the decentralized structure of Mastodon created challenges for community building and sustained user engagement.
Bluesky’s moment
Meanwhile, the U.S. election in November seems to have been the tipping point as a compelling reason to leave for many X users, along with terms of service changes regarding AI training. And it seems that at this moment there are other different “immediate viable alternatives.”
Bluesky in particular saw huge growth in November, topping 20 million users, and at the time of this writing is still gaining several users per second.
Though media and popular attention has been focused on Bluesky, Threads, which has nearly 300 million users, saw even more new sign-ups in November than Bluesky’s entire user base. Nevertheless, even Meta seems to be focused on Bluesky’s surge. It has scrambled to incorporate features into Threads that are selling points of Bluesky, such as customizable feeds.
Perhaps Bluesky’s growth is particularly impressive – and therefore threatening to Meta – because it occurred essentially by word of mouth. In contrast, Threads has an absolutely enormous advertising platform: Instagram. Not only can Threads users simply use their existing Instagram accounts, but Meta has also started pushing Threads posts to Instagram.
So when considering these three major Twitter alternatives – Mastodon, Bluesky and Threads – Bluesky’s moment actually makes a lot of sense to me. It feels less corporate than Meta’s Threads, and so it represents an alternative to Big Tech platforms controlled by billionaires. It also appeals to people who believe in the vision of decentralized social media or who want the option to control their data.
But at the same time, the user experience is nearly identical to familiar, traditional social media, and it addresses some of the challenges identified with Mastodon, such as the learning curve for choosing a server. A surge in creation and use of starter packs on Bluesky – curated lists of people to follow – have also accelerated the creation of community and social networks. And the sudden buzz around the platform all at once has created momentum for entire former Twitter communities, such as Academic Twitter, to partially reconstitute themselves.
No one site to rule them all
Despite my optimism for the continued growth of Bluesky, I don’t think there will ever be a “new Twitter.” Social media fragmentation is here to stay, and many people are very happy on Threads or Mastodon or even smaller alternatives capitalizing on the latest X exodus. And X itself has over 600 million active monthly users.
These platforms all provide something different, with different communities and priorities, and none will be the best option for everyone. Moreover, as Bluesky continues to grow, it will inevitably face many of the same problems that Twitter did even when the platform was perceived as being at its greatest.
But for those who were hoping to “move on to healthier spaces” after attending Twitter’s funeral, there are multiple doors open for them.
Casey Fiesler is Associate Professor of Information Science, University of Colorado Boulder.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
22 Comments
Login to comment
Jay
By "greener pastures", they're really looking for a new daycare center where fragility can shield itself from reality while pretending it's some grand bastion of intellectual thought. Let's be honest, it’s not a platform for free expression; it's a padded playroom where only the "correct" opinions are allowed, and anything remotely challenging to their radical worldview is labeled "hate speech" and promptly banned.
Unsurprisingly, BlueSky doesn't want free speech; they want curated speech - a never-ending echo chamber of Leftist/Marxist groupthink where everyone nods along in agreement because dissent is just too scary. This isn't not a social network; it’s a digital safe space for whatever the opposite of accountability is.
lostrune2
Twitter has become the new 4chan
There are already other alternatives like Discord, Reddit, etc.
Ken
I think you got that part wrong. Regardless what Twitter has become is something that is a danger to people using it. The fact that misinformation flows in and out of there isn't a joking matter with people taking it seriously. Just imaging how terrible and how much racist hatred would be flowing if Musk took over in 2020 when Covid started. Hate crimes against Asians would increase as well as the disrespect and lack of peace.
And part of the problem being how unstable Musk is when it comes to interfering with politics and spreading chaos. The Brazilian and Australian government wanted bans for Twitter because of him not giving a dam as well as the CCP won't allow Twitter in their country which is honestly one of the few ways to keep people safe from Musks control over the braindead believers
Wick's pencil
How many are real users?
Ken
I wonder how many real Twitter users there are because it is definitely less. Musk was faking about buying it to get rid of bots, he brought it to get rid of expressing opposing views but now he is trying to add so much AI which seems like him going against his own word
Jay
Ken, if you're against "danger" to people, you need to not conveniently ignore how Leftist-controlled platforms censor legitimate debates and scientific discussions, labeling dissent as "misinformation." Remember when questioning the origins of a certain virus was branded a "racist conspiracy theory"? Fast forward, and even mainstream outlets now acknowledge the lab-leak theory as extremely plausible. The censorship crowd wasn’t protecting "peace" or "truth"; they were protecting their narrative.
And hate crimes against Asians? Hate crimes against Asians surged under the so-called "censorship heroes" when violent thugs targeted Asians in major U.S. cities. Where were the fact-checkers then? Too busy flagging tweets about ivermectin and school closures while conveniently ignoring inconvenient truths?
The Left's obsession with "disinformation" is just code for silencing anyone who challenges their orthodoxy. It's why we end up with authoritarian lockdowns, harmful school closures, and propaganda disguised as "trust the science."
Understand that censorship doesn't prevent hate or violence; it fuels distrust and division. Want peace and respect? Me too. So let's start by respecting free speech - yes, even the speech you don't like.
Justin Case
I miss the old days of Usenet and uping @9600Baud
virusrex
That is a huge part of the problem, people that think debates and scientific discussion are done on social media, the debates and discussions are being done in the same place they have been done, the scientific literature. What people in social media do is either reference the results of these discussions or falsehoods being repeated by known quacks, this latter part is what should be excluded from the conversation so people are not mislead by falsehoods, something that of course deeply hurt the people that profit from those falsehoods.
Still false, if you knew where the actual scientific discussions are being made you would understand that since years ago every piece of new information points out to the animal market, from molecular to epidemiological data. What you want is for the falsehood of the conspiracy to be still held as if it had any credibility, even when there is no respected institution of science in the whole world that says it is plausible, much less likely, thanks to the mountains of evidence that contradict this.
Contradict each other and attacks on methods, qualify of data, strength of conclusions, etc. Is actually what science is all about, and in services such as BlueSky is done daily since scientists moved in masse there, what is done in twitter is not discussion, is repeating proved falsehoods as if that made them less false, which is not discussion in any sense of the word.
divinda
Twitter was so much better when it allowed the US gov and FBI to influence content moderation, when it conducted shadow banning, and when one could get blacklisted just by having a non-conformist point of view.
So hopefully Bluesky can be all that Twitter no longer is!
Ken
This makes zero sense whatsoever. There is no peace if people don't respect one another. When Musk and his people say "free speech" they sound like a heretic who doesn't know what free speech means.
Musk should focus on Mars and bringing al of his Twitter posse there with him then problem solved, he has the money to do so
Abe234
JayToday 08:00 am JST
You totally lost me as soon as I saw the political “Leftist” blame game. The world isn’t leftist. There are views, discussions, debates. We don’t need to discuss everything through “that’s leftist, or that’s far right”. I think most people can have an informed intelligent conversation without the political banter thrown in.
Jay
Completely false according to every single institution in the entire world.
Let's not forget, some of the biggest scientific falsehoods have come from the experts you idolize. The same "trusted authorities" flip-flopped on masks, downplayed natural immunity, and labeled lab-leak theories as conspiracies before sheepishly admitting they are extremely valid. You want to protect people from being "misled by falsehoods"? Perhaps start by holding your employer accountable for spreading government-approved misinformation.
Unfortunately, your argument boils down to censorship disguised as "fact-checking," and it’s no coincidence that what you call 'falsehoods' just happen to be viewpoints inconvenient to your narrative. If you really believed in science, you'd welcome debate and public scrutiny instead of hiding behind suppression tactics.
Tokyo Guy
How many are real users?
i reckon this is the big question.
Lately on Facebook, when the BBC account has some story or other, the top ten, fifteen comments are, without fail, all from accounts with African names, and all, without fail, say the same thing (usually some religious BS or how Trump is the savior of mankind, the usual engagement / rage bait). Now it's possible that Facebook has seen a sudden influx of African users who all happen to think the same way, but the more logical explanation is that it's all bots.
lostrune2
Musk has always said at least 20% are bots
And nothing has been done about that
Ah_so
I didn't understand all that stuff about servers, but I'm just happy that there is and alternative to eX.
eX swim eXpire in sure course, now that Musk has built it around his somewhat repulsive personality.
Some dude
Any social media app will eventually go to seed, as it is human nature to create something good and then wreck it in one way or another. It's just a question of how long it takes and how it happens.
Happened with X when Rich Manchild bought it. Happened with Facebook over time as competitors turned up and FB became "the app your auntie and uncle post on". Doesn't seem to have happened to Threads yet, but Threads is relatively new.
Haven't looked into Bluesky, but if it's the terrible liberal echo chamber that certain people claim, it has to be worth a look just to avoid the worst trolls. For the time being (see my first sentence).
Wick's pencil
I see you continue to ignore the actual scientific discussion that took place in their private emails where the experts acknowledged the lab-leak theory as being most likely. The "scientific paper" that soon followed was them protecting their butts, same with later papers.
virusrex
You understand that Musk is still doing everything you describe, right? It is just that now the banning, moderation, etc. is done without any regard to actual evidence and it is all according to what Musk likes to promote or not.
Of course you can bring references to prove this is false right?
Or not, thus proving this is just a claim you just made up because you don't have any actual argument against this and therefore you are forced to imagine something and make a false appeal to authority that you have no intention to support.
How does this refute that what you claimed was now proved true is instead being proved false with more and more evidence? you made a claim that was easy to debunk, you still want this disproved claim to be pushed for people, and when challenged to provide evidence of that claim (or at least arguments to defend it) your reply is that nobody is perfect? that makes no sense, either you prove that scientists are wrong more than the people that got angry for not being able to push falsehoods or you concede the argument that the experts are a much better source of information even if not perfect, simply because they are much more likely to be correct.
Nope, still false, everybody initially consider every possible (realistic) explanation, and then the data came up and it became clear the natural origin was simply much more likely to be correct and the lab origin contradicted available evidence and required evidence that was not present even if it would be expected to be obvious, at that point it became clear one explanation was much better than the other, something that continues until today with more and more evidence piled up towards the natural origin.
There was never a point where the "experts acknowledged the lab-leak theory as being most likely" that is false.
nishikat
So what? It's a business and NOT a government - the owners can do what they want. As long as they don't pull a Giuliani and get sued. Musk wants to be worshiped and his businesses are a scam (what happened to the cyber semi, hyperloop, Boring company, and that hideous Cyber Pickup?, lots of other Musk scams)
It's so funny that Trump people worship Musk but they would never buy an e-car.
Kaowaiinekochanknaw
I prefer the new twitter which is X
kohakuebisu
Yeah, I can't go read than two lines on X/Twitter without seeing someone talk about the base vs. the superstructure.
Some people may not get this joke, because they don't know what Marxism is.
Peter Neil
mass social media megaphones and the internet in general changed our perception of the world. people had no idea 30-years ago how many dimwits there are wandering about out there.
reading on the internet what people think can make you stupid.