Bluesky is still in its infancy, but the social media platform is growing fast. And it might already be a more engaging place to post than Elon Musk's X.
In case you missed it, Bluesky's growth has skyrocketed since the election. It shot to the top of the App Store and nearly doubled in growth to some 20 million users and counting. On Wednesday, it added about 8 users per second.
With that growth has come an interesting development: Bluesky might be a better place for actual engagement than X, the website formerly known as Twitter. With its choose-your-own-algorithm model, users can opt to follow the app's Discover feed, chronological Following feed, or one of the many feeds curated by other users — a formula for a better, more real experience.
I was, by most metrics, a Twitter power user. I've posted more than 28,000 times since joining in 2012 and, as a digital journalist, have used the site as a key part of my job. And, as recently as October, I wrote that while Musk's version of X sucked, I would not be leaving. I'm no longer so sure.
Setting aside moral qualms about using X — though those exist — it's become increasingly difficult to enjoy using the platform. If you refuse to pay the world's richest man for a blue check, then you'll see your engagement get throttled. God forbid, though, you have a post break through. Then your replies will be a flood of blue check replies, most of which read like bots or trolls.
Still, most of the time, posting on X seems like talking into the void. I have a few thousand followers on X, but most posts these day get very few, if any, likes. That wasn't the norm pre-Elon. And, importantly, any engagement I have gotten often sucks. A recent post that did well I pretty much immediately muted due to annoying replies. A social media site can only be flooded with spammy flotsam for so long before it takes over the experience.
On Bluesky, anecdotally, I feel like I get roughly the same amount of engagement as on X: very little. But I've barely used the platform and have just 75 followers. But any likes and replies I have gotten have been from real human beings. And my new followers? Ditto. Meanwhile, on X, my latest mention is a crypto scam and my last three follows are spammy bots.
Other folks have noticed that perhaps engagement is better on Bluesky. Here's NBC tech and culture reporter Kat Tenbarge, for instance.
I asked around at Mashable, as well, among folks who've used Bluesky often.
"On Twitter, I've got more than 7,000 followers. On Bluesky, I've got fewer than 2,000. But my posts feel like a ghost town on the former, while consistently getting at least a little bit of engagement on the latter," said Mashable tech and video games reporter Alex Perry. "It should also be noted that 100 percent of replies I get on Bluesky are from real people, and not blue check bots."
Mashable reporter Matt Binder, meanwhile, noted that Bluesky felt a lot like old Twitter.
"Replying to an account actually has meaning and can find you new followers and engagement. Now, on [X], it doesn't matter," Binder said. "Replies are all just blue checkmarks getting prioritized and AI-generated replies to get engagement. But the content of replies on Bluesky matters like how they did on old Twitter."
Sure, migrating to Bluesky means starting from scratch. But it also might mean more genuine engagement and using a social media site actually functioning for its users.
