Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter, now known as X, the platform has seen millions of users seeking greener pastures, abandoning what many describe as Musk's increasingly toxic environment. One such refuge is the newly-popularized Bluesky. Unlike its predecessor, Bluesky promises decentralization and user autonomy, stirring curiosity about its structures of power.
Nathalie Van Raemdonck points out how Bluesky has swiftly become the favored alternative for those disenchanted by X. This migration happened alongside larger discussions about the function of social media platforms, particularly concerning narratives dominated by misinformation and hate speech. Users are no longer just leaving X—many are searching for spaces free from the far-right agendas perceived to shape its future.
But where does power lie within Bluesky? This is the pivotal question many are pondering as they navigate its unique, decentralized structure. Critics of centralized tech giants, like Cory Doctorow, caution about potential risks. Doctorow describes the phenomenon of “enshittification”—a process through which platforms, once beneficial, morph to prioritize profit over user experience as they grow.
At its core, Bluesky utilizes the ATprotocol, which enables diverse applications to be built within its framework. While it currently hosts its own platform, the model remains open enough for others to create alternative applications. Nonetheless, many new accounts initially default to Bluesky's servers, posing challenges for users who wish to migrate elsewhere.
The ATmosphere within Bluesky functions similarly to the internet—where various platforms exist independently of one another but can be accessed via a central indexer. Much like how Google indexes web pages, Bluesky serves as the indexer for users connected within the ATmosphere. While it's technically feasible to switch platforms, the road is bumpy, requiring technical know-how and possibly some financial investment.
This mix of ease and complexity means many users may be reluctant to venture beyond Bluesky, leading to fears about stagnation within its system. Doctorow's warnings resonate: even within decentralized networks, power can still inadvertently coalesce around certain individuals or groups, undermining the very decentralization they were created to promote.
Another aspect to Bluesky's power structure is its unique model aimed at separating the ideas of “speech” from “reach.” The developers have been influenced by free speech advocacy movements, emphasizing user control over content. According to TechDirt founder Mike Masnick, this approach allows users to selectively filter what content makes it to their feeds. Only illegal content is moderated outright, leaving users free to engage with varied perspectives, but potentially exposing them to harmful material.
To uphold this model, Bluesky has introduced layered moderation. Labelers employed by the platform categorize content as rude, discriminatory, or misinformation, allowing users to decide whether they want to see such content or shield themselves from it. This layered approach means two people following the same accounts may experience entirely different feeds, based not just on who they follow, but on how they wish to interact with the platform's content.
Another innovation is the “marketplace of algorithms.” Users can craft custom feed algorithms based on personalized preferences. This means one might see posts primarily from friends, or filter content by language, or even by engagement level, adding even more choice to feed curation.
Moderation lists add another layer of customization. These lists allow users to block or mute individuals they prefer not to engage with, and users can subscribe to public lists to see fewer conflicts. This shift from outright confrontation to avoidance helps mitigate “cancel culture” seen frequently on X, but it can also lead to echo chambers where differing opinions are filtered out altogether.
The emergence of community-focused initiatives like BlackSky within Bluesky demonstrates the practical application of these features. Developer Rudy Fraser created this safe space where Black individuals can connect, building networks without fear of harassment. Drawing users from disenfranchised groups helps create community within the digital sphere, offering shelter against the hostility prevalent elsewhere online.
Yet, for all its promise, Bluesky is not without scrutiny. The very structures meant to empower users have the potential to concentrate individual power precariously. Moderators and list administrators hold considerable sway over the community and content visibility. Even though users can create new feeds or communities, first movers often set the tone, making it difficult for others to establish competing narratives.
Power dynamics are not just structural; they reflect broader human tendencies to gravitate toward leaders within any group setting. While Bluesky may prioritize decentralization in its design, the realities highlight how power and influence can emulate traditional hierarchies.
Turning to sociocultural aspects, Bluesky has opted for what’s termed mute culture over call-out culture. For Twitter, the highly-visible nature of comments led to frequent public shaming and confrontation, often exacerbated by the chaotic interaction of differing social norms. This resulted in users becoming entangled in what researcher danah boyd identified as “context collapse,” where varied audiences overlap, creating discord.
Conversely, Bluesky promotes the idea of invisibility for those with whom one might disagree, focusing on community standards over public reprimands. This adjustment could offer protection to those facing harassment but might also limit dialogue around divisive issues such as race or global conflicts.
So, is one platform fundamentally “better” than the other? It seems the answer depends on individual user preferences and experiences. For some, Bluesky’s more supportive environment is exactly what they need. For others, those seeking rigorous debate and discussion around uncomfortable topics might find the platform’s approach too stifling—essentially making polarizing voices invisible.
This selective invisibility might help mitigate partisanship, yet engaging with contrasting perspectives can create opportunities for growth and dialogue. Political theorist Chantal Mouffe advocates for “agonistic” deliberation, where even conflicting viewpoints can shine through without muting entirely. For public deliberation to remain healthy and impactful, engaging across different perspectives must remain possible, and excluding voices—whether intentionally or through abstract moderation tactics—could risk losing valuable discourse.
Nevertheless, the social dynamics within Bluesky showcase its potential as more than just another alternative to X. What stands out is its ambition to decentralize user control, placing individuals at the helm of their digital experiences. Users now have choices to build their platforms, curate their experiences, and navigate complex social interactions, but this power remains tethered to Bluesky itself.
