Janice R. Andrews
In the evolving landscape of text-based social platforms, Bluesky and Threads have emerged as the most promising alternatives to the platform formerly known as Twitter. While both services aim to redefine social networking, their approaches highlight vastly different philosophies and tactics.
Threads, a product of Meta and helmed by Mark Zuckerberg, claims to foster “public conversation.” However, its actions often reveal a preference for controlling the narrative. The platform has faced criticism for throttling “political” content during election years, forcing users to enable certain topics like elections or social issues manually in their feeds.
This approach to content moderation has led to questionable decisions. Threads has previously restricted searches for topics related to COVID-19 and vaccines, although those limitations were later removed. However, inexplicable moderation lapses persist. In October, Instagram head Adam Mosseri admitted to mistakes after users reported being penalized for innocuous terms like “saltines” and “cracker.” More recently, Meta faced backlash when searches for “Austin Tice,” an American journalist missing in Syria, were blocked due to an erroneous association with drug sales.
In contrast, Bluesky offers a decentralized and user-driven moderation model. While the platform enforces basic moderation, it allows users to create their own moderation tools, offering a customizable experience. Bluesky CEO Jay Graber emphasizes this decentralized approach, stating, “Moderation, like governance, shouldn’t be dictated by a single entity for an entire ecosystem.”
This philosophy extends beyond moderation. Bluesky fosters link sharing, which benefits publishers, unlike Threads and X, which have de-emphasized such content. Bluesky has even outperformed its competitors in driving traffic to publishers’ content.
The platforms’ differing approaches to content discovery are equally striking. Threads prioritizes an algorithmic “For You” feed that mixes relevant posts with often perplexing and unrelated content. Though Meta has introduced custom feeds and is testing a default “Following” feed, the platform remains heavily reliant on its algorithms.
Bluesky, on the other hand, champions user control with a default reverse chronological feed showing posts from followed accounts. Users can also curate their experience with custom feeds tailored to specific interests, such as trending news or even cat pictures.
Looking ahead, monetization strategies are set to further differentiate the two platforms. Threads is inevitably tied to Meta’s colossal advertising ecosystem, with reports suggesting ads could debut as early as January 2025. In contrast, Bluesky is exploring alternative revenue streams like selling custom domains and introducing subscription services for premium features. While advertising hasn’t been ruled out, Graber is adamant about avoiding the pitfalls of over-commercialization.
The competition is steep. Threads already boasts a user base over 10 times larger than Bluesky, and Meta’s history of leveraging its vast resources against challengers is well-documented. Despite this, Bluesky’s independence and commitment to open-source decentralization have garnered a loyal following.
Bluesky’s democratic structure empowers users and developers alike, resulting in the creation of numerous third-party apps. While Threads and X consolidate control in the hands of billionaires, Bluesky strives to redefine how social platforms operate.
Whether Bluesky can withstand Meta’s financial muscle remains uncertain. However, its vision for a decentralized, user-centric social network transcends the race to become the next big platform. As Graber aptly stated, “We set out to change the way social media works from the bottom up. I want us to have choice over what we see.”
This clash of visions highlights the contrasting futures of social networking—one centralized and algorithm-driven, the other open, decentralized, and rooted in user autonomy.
