In recent months, Bluesky has gone from being a niche, invite-only platform to one of the leading alternatives to X (formerly Twitter). Backed by advocates of a decentralized web and embraced by progressive users disillusioned with X’s increasingly authoritarian and commercial shift, Bluesky quickly surpassed 36 million accounts. But today, despite the impressive numbers, many are asking: why does Bluesky feel so empty?
Three recent sources—Slate, the Pew Research Center, and Fortune—offer valuable insights into the platform’s current state. What emerges is a complex but consistent picture: Bluesky risks becoming an unfulfilled promise if it cannot evolve beyond its ideological and cultural bubble.
Numerical growth that doesn’t equal vitality
According to the Pew Research Center, Bluesky experienced rapid adoption among “news influencers” (journalists, commentators, and creators with over 100,000 followers) in the aftermath of the 2024 U.S. election, jumping from 21% to 43% adoption in just four months. However, 82% of those influencers still maintain an account on X, and only 6% are exclusively on Bluesky. The platform has grown—but it hasn’t replaced X.
User activity remains low: less than one-third of Bluesky’s news influencers post regularly. In contrast, over 80% of those on X post at least four days a week. This imbalance helps explain the widespread perception of Bluesky as an eerily quiet platform.
An echo chamber that limits conversation
A Slate article notes that while Bluesky’s user base is often well-intentioned and thoughtful, the platform today is dominated by a serious, overly earnest tone with little room for levity. Humor is often misunderstood or attacked, and the most visible content tends to be negative or outraged.
The criticism comes from within: the authors are long-time users who lament the lack of spontaneity, diversity, and variety in the discourse. Their plea: “We need more memes, more shitposters, more conversations about unimportant things.”
Mark Cuban: “Too Intolerant—even among allies”
Adding to this reflection is the perspective of Mark Cuban, a liberal entrepreneur and early supporter of Bluesky. After nearly 2,000 posts, Cuban recently criticized the platform for its “lack of diversity of thought.” According to him, even small disagreements among ideologically aligned users are met with harsh accusations: “If you’re not 100% in agreement, you’re a fascist.”
Cuban shared a Washington Post article arguing that Bluesky’s “bubble” ultimately harms the very progressive causes it seeks to promote. He also observed that many users are quietly returning to X—where, despite its flaws, debate and variety still exist.
A cultural challenge, not just a technical one
Bluesky has everything it needs to become a healthy digital space: it isn’t driven by opaque algorithms, it doesn’t monetize outrage, and it values original content. But to remain relevant, it must attract and retain a broader base of users with diverse interests and perspectives. Most importantly, it must strike a balance between safety and open dialogue, between activism and lightheartedness.
As Slate points out, Twitter at its best was like a large state university—open to all, chaotic, but vibrant. Today, Bluesky feels more like a small liberal arts college: cozy, but perhaps too insular.
Conclusion: make room for oof-script voices
For many observers—especially those who identify with liberal values—Bluesky represents a real hope. But the platform cannot function as an ideological safe space. It needs pluralism, self-awareness, and less dogmatism.
What Bluesky needs now is not more rules, but more voices. More pirates. More kind shitposters. Only then can Bluesky be not just an alternative to X, but a credible alternative to toxic social media as a whole.
Sources:
- Slate: The Real Problem With Bluesky
- Pew Research Center: Bluesky and News Influencers
- Fortune: Mark Cuban on Bluesky’s Backfire
Digital Data Stories 
Leave a comment