Bluesky - "Decentralized" Twitter Alternative. Leftist Tranny Hugbox. "Answer" to Elon Musk's "Fascist" Takeover of 𝕏 (Formerly Twitter).

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
X is the playground where all the kids there swear that they heard someone was totally murdered there one time and it's in the part of town where the ice cream truck still passes by.

Bluesky is the playground where the dirt has been replaced with that diced rubber shit that looks like aquarium gravel. In keeping with this analogy, it's also the one that the pedos lurk at.
 
1749512183411.webp
This is the perfect description of precisely what's wrong with Bluesky as a social media site. It's also what was wrong with old twitter, tumblr back then(and now, to a possibly lesser extent) and numerous other sites as well.
 
If you're looking for a general idea of how poorly Bluesky maintains its users, consider this: the OP mentioned that around 6% of Bluesky users had eventually deleted their accounts.
The core userbase is so toxic and unwelcoming that 6% of new accounts end up deleting their accounts because they can't fucking stand how insufferable the power-hungry trannies are and are unable to gain traction or go against the app's culture.
What stood out to me was this screenshot shared by Throbnelius, taken from Clearsky, a scraper that pulls public statistics from Bluesky. That screenshot was timestamped November 15, 2024.
1749692942236.webp

I took a screenshot of the same page today, just under seven months later:
1749693136343.webp
No, that's not an exaggeration. In that time, the percentage of deleted accounts rose from 6% to 37.35%. And keep in mind that the figure only accounts for deleted profiles. It likely doesn’t include accounts that are simply abandoned.
 
Here is xthedarkone the "daddy" pngtuber who "forgot" to pay a car loan which led to a loan officer coming to his house (which he posted an image of). This caused him to ask for his fans to give him $600 or else they will take it away!
 

Attachments

  • brave_pQuvxUJvLA.webp
    brave_pQuvxUJvLA.webp
    454.1 KB · Views: 57
  • ssstik.io_@xthedarkone_1749694893362.mp4
    27.1 MB
This is the perfect description of precisely what's wrong with Bluesky as a social media site. It's also what was wrong with old twitter, tumblr back then(and now, to a possibly lesser extent) and numerous other sites as well.
Social media platforms tend to be shit, yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wright
No, that's not an exaggeration. In that time, the percentage of deleted accounts rose from 6% to 37.35%. And keep in mind that the figure only accounts for deleted profiles. It likely doesn’t include accounts that are simply abandoned.
Is there a way to compare this to 𝕏? People have been saying that's dying fast the last few months. I wonder if people are just getting sick of this kind of social media.
 
In that time, the percentage of deleted accounts rose from 6% to 37.35%.
Seems less like a rise and moreso a jump. I mean, from less than 1 million to 300k shy of 13 million. That's around a 1302% increase from the previous statistic. According to my retard math calculations, assuming the number of deleted accounts was the same consistently every day for seven months, 55,825 accounts have been deleted daily. How the fuck?
 
According to my retard math calculations, assuming the number of deleted accounts was the same consistently every day for seven months, 55,825 accounts have been deleted daily. How the fuck?
Maybe Bluesky itself deleted a bunch of bot accounts. I don't pay close enough attention to the platform to know if they do that.
 
Maybe Bluesky itself deleted a bunch of bot accounts. I don't pay close enough attention to the platform to know if they do that.
Something like that would explain a lot, because this is an insane number for it to be users doing it manually. I can only think of one or two accounts I've ever shut down on a site, generally if I don't like a site I just abandon my account.

Could also be the result of Bluesky jannies finally catching up on the unprecedented volume of reports and banning all the wrongthinkers. Whatever the reality is losing more than a third of your userbase in under a year is very funny. I bet Threads is even worse.
 
If you're looking for a general idea of how poorly Bluesky maintains its users, consider this: the OP mentioned that around 6% of Bluesky users had eventually deleted their accounts.

What stood out to me was this screenshot shared by Throbnelius, taken from Clearsky, a scraper that pulls public statistics from Bluesky. That screenshot was timestamped November 15, 2024.
View attachment 7490239

I took a screenshot of the same page today, just under seven months later:
View attachment 7490264
No, that's not an exaggeration. In that time, the percentage of deleted accounts rose from 6% to 37.35%. And keep in mind that the figure only accounts for deleted profiles. It likely doesn’t include accounts that are simply abandoned.
That's a very interesting statistic, huh?

One could accuse Bluesky of being a "botting" place and while that would be wrong, it shows that there is still a "need" for an alternative to Twitter.
 
An artist I was working with decided to delete their Twitter account and forced me to continue working with them over Bluesky only to find out we cant even send images over DMs and apparently he cant even send links. How the fuck did so many artists move to this platform when it has zero features useful to you? Is not having these features the only way to keep Bluesky from becoming a hotbed of illegal content sharing or something?
 
No, that's not an exaggeration. In that time, the percentage of deleted accounts rose from 6% to 37.35%. And keep in mind that the figure only accounts for deleted profiles. It likely doesn’t include accounts that are simply abandoned.
If we're going to take the screenshot at face value 12.7M deleted isn't included in those 33.7M active accounts making the deleted rate 12.7/(33.7 + 12.7M) = 27.42% still absymal, but closer to a quarter than a third
1749745994280.webp


If you look at the overall stats page on clearsky, they have total users listed twice at two numbers in the range of 46.4M that are close but not equal to the sum of active + deleted. (I'm not sure why exactly, but I'll assume either is close enough)
1749746075384.webp
This would also suggest that "It likely doesn’t include accounts that are simply abandoned" is not true either if active + deleted = the total users, that would appear that clearsky isn't counting "inactive" accounts (as that would presumably be an arbitrary criteria they would have to decide on).

I think the Community Notes post should be updated to reflect that it's 27.42% deleted and this is of all profiles, as clearsky seems to use "active" meaning able to post/ not inactivated not active in the sense of being logged onto, and interacting with or making posts every month or whatever.
 
"I'm anti-bad guy, that means anything I do is automatically good and if you get in my way you're one of them!"
I've always felt the MAPs should band together under the banner of Antipeds.

Yes, they fuck kids, but you can't get mad at them or criticise anything they say or do because their group name just means 'anti-pedophile' and what's wrong with that? After all, if you're not antiped you must be proped. You're not pro-pedophile are you, buddy??
 
I've always felt the MAPs should band together under the banner of Antipeds.

Yes, they fuck kids, but you can't get mad at them or criticise anything they say or do because their group name just means 'anti-pedophile' and what's wrong with that? After all, if you're not antiped you must be proped. You're not pro-pedophile are you, buddy??
"Antira: Anti Rape Activists
Our mission - Ensuring that all sex with children is 100% consensual."
 
ksnip_20250608-134832.webp


Article/Archive

Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, changed the social media site’s name to X and altered its moderation policies, progressives have been hunting for a substitute. To judge how their search is going, consider a recent item from Politico’s Playbook, which notes that “a number of prominent commentators, experts and groups” are pledging to post on other platforms before X.

“The ‘X-last’ strategy,” says Playbook, “led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk’s platform to Bluesky.”
Note that they’re not demanding that people stop posting to X. They’re just asking them to post a bit less. It’s certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they’re aware how unlikely this is to work.

A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I’m one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It’s now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out.

This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline.

Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it’s most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky.

You can’t blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky’s beautiful blue bubble isn’t a great idea for the movement. This effort isn’t just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It’s likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective.

Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence.

For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the “national conversation” on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events.

That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter’s professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals’ demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman.

Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which Twitter throttled as “disinformation” in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them.

Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That’s a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter.

It’s not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it’s not working, and I’m skeptical it ever will.

The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it’s hard to get positive engagement unless you’re saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don’t want to hear can be intense. That’s true even for content that isn’t obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he’ll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too “fraught.”

All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren’t already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they’re mostly talking among themselves.

One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that’s not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement’s worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies.

Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that “The ‘let’s tell anyone we don’t like to kill themselves’ crowd are not welcome here” because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter.

When you never hear from the other side, it’s pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it’s a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.
The most notable thing about the article (so far) is where the author says, "It’s now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out."
Not sure why this got such little attention in this thread. A leftist outlet that normally ballwashes anything on the left openly said BlueSky is an echo chamber and it's intolerance of any other viewpoints is killing it. It's literally confirming everything people have said here since the site began. It also confirms the traffic is down 50% which is huge. BlueSky is such an obvious echo chamber even liberal journalists are calling it out
 
Back