The Narrative

Nobody goes to Truth Social hoping to talk to a bunch of liberals. But there was nothing in the Bluesky edict that suggested it needed to become a hub of progressive politics. Or a community of artists. Or a home base for retro computing nerds. There were many communities that showed up to Bluesky, and political types were just one category.

Yet, based on how commentators are writing about it at the moment, you’d never know that there are lots of thriving communities there.

Bluesky has grown significantly over the last year, though its daily active users are perhaps not what they were at the beginning of the year. But an unusual specimen of post has emerged in the mainstream media over the past couple of weeks: Is Bluesky dying? And if so, why?

You would not believe the number of hot takes out there about this discussion point, many frustrated with the overtly political tone of the network, some complaining about a lack of “ideological diversity,” whatever that means. In one sense, I would like to argue that most people should ignore them—people who get paid by the column are constantly on the lookout for fresh chum. Bluesky’s cultural position looking a little precarious certainly looks like chum.

(It doesn’t matter that other social networks market to the ideological poles far more explicitly. The haters have decided this is the conversation we’re having right now, whether we like it or not.)

But in another sense, I worry about how commentary like this sets the tone going forward. I suggested on Bluesky earlier today, in reference to D-VHS enthusiast Mark Cuban seemingly deciding he was sick of getting dunked on, that we should be worried about how this commentary is going to affect the network’s future success. My post mostly led a lot of people to dunk on Cuban, but I saw surprising pushback to this point.

The gist of some of these responses was, essentially, “it’s not our job to protect Bluesky’s business.” Someone got mad in my mentions later in the day when I tried to contextualize the point. But I think it’s not really about protecting Bluesky’s business but protecting a place you like hanging out—which, because Bluesky is a for-profit company, has business parameters.

To be clear, the goal should not be hyper-growth at all costs—Threads is way bigger than Bluesky is, but its community is honestly toxic. Rather, by Bluesky having a strong community, it is easier for the network’s owners to invest in the ecosystem. That creates halo effects—third-party developers are more likely to come to a network that’s growing, for example, and it creates more potential for investment.

I don’t think that means you shouldn’t complain when Bluesky does something wrong. Or that you actively have to give a crap about these articles. Rather, I think telling people that this is where you like to hang out is enough. “Oh, you read some bad things about Bluesky? Ignore it; it’s BS. I know a dude there who runs a pretty cool zine.”

The thing is, social networks ebb and flow. There was a time when it looked like Tumblr was about to hit a level comparable to Twitter or Facebook, but it didn’t quite happen. And some people might look and say, “Hey, there’s still a community here, I still like it!” All for you finding your crew—but your crew might be a bit stronger if there was a little less friction in getting new people into the door.

When a company struggles because of an external narrative, that’s often when enshittification sets in. Have an app you loved in 2015, but kind of sucks now? It’s possible that bad buzz about a certain feature might have been enough to kill its vibes, which eventually led to less investment or even an unwanted sale. Sometimes a bad narrative is deserved—I mean, when it turned out Juicero didn’t need the expensive device it sold to customers, there was a reason there was no coming back for that company. But when it isn’t, it can sting all the more.

Likewise, when social media networks add features that upset users but seem to exist to help the network make money, this can shake up the vibe in not-so-great ways.

Tying this all back to Bluesky, I don’t think you have to care what specific critics are specifically saying about Bluesky. But I think that if you like a community and want to see it thrive, you should advocate for it—especially knowing that not everyone’s going to be in its corner.

We live in a world where people with large audiences are called “influencers” for a reason—we shouldn’t ignore how their influence can harm a thing you like. Especially when a social network is more than just about politics.