Hey there – like billions of others, you likely use Twitter already for news, memes, chatter and outrage. But have you heard of Bluesky? At first glance it sounds pretty similar – they‘re both social networks right?
Well yes…and no. I‘ll explain the key differences between the two and why it matters. By the end, you‘ll understand Bluesky‘s radically different approach and whether it – or plain ol Twitter – is a better fit for your needs and values.
What Even Is Bluesky?
Firstly – what is Bluesky and where did it come from?
Bluesky is the brainchild of Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey. Even as Twitter grew into a global juggernaut, Dorsey wondered – could the fundamentals of social media be improved?
In 2019, while still CEO of Twitter, he announced Bluesky – an independent company aiming to develop an open decentralized standard for social networking.
In plain English – this means no single entity controls the network. Not even Bluesky itself.
So Bluesky was incubated within Twitter, with some funding from the big bird. But it‘s now an entirely separate company with a seed funding round of $13 million. Its goal? Crack the code on decentralized social media.
Oh, you want specifics? Sure thing…
Here‘s a quick snapshot highlighting the history and growth of Twitter compared to the newer upstart Bluesky:
| Bluesky | ||
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2006 by Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams etc | 2019 by Jack Dorsey while CEO of Twitter |
| # Users reaching | 237 million monetizable daily active users | Currently in closed beta testing with around 3500 users |
| Funding raised | Over $2 billion before IPO | $13 million seed round from Twitter and other investors |
| Led by | CEO Parag Agrawal after Dorsey‘s exit | President Jay Graber prev. at Google & Stanford |
So Twitter clearly has gigantic head start in building a huge global user base. Bluesky is just getting started.
But beyond the different stages they are at, there is an even more fundamental difference in their approach. Let‘s dive in…
Centralized vs Decentralized: The Core Difference
Twitter and Bluesky illustrate two divergent approaches to building social networking platforms:
Centralized Platforms:
This is Twitter‘s approach. All user data, posts, connections and activities flow through servers owned by a single company – Twitter Inc.
As a result, Twitter headquarters calls all the shots when it comes to:
- Content moderation policies
- Which tweets to promote or throttle
- Ad targeting based on user data
- Platform governance and updates
Decentralized Protocols:
This is the path Bluesky wants to pave. Instead of a centralized service, the goal is to create an open, decentralized protocol – similar to the base layer of Internet itself.
With an underlying decentralized protocol, many different participants can build social apps and services that plug into the same standard. This allows completely independent services to connect their social graphs and exchange data.
Importantly, no one entity or group calls the shots. All contributors collectively govern the protocol.
The result? Power and control moves from centralized corporations to individual users.
Now those are definitely some bold promises from Bluesky. Almost sounds too good to be true!
So what are the specifics behind this decentralized vision? And why is it better than having a centralized platform like Twitter? Let‘s analyze further…
Censorship, Algorithms and Privacy – Who‘s Really in Charge?
The centralized model of platforms like Twitter has raised many thorny issues around:
-
Censorship – Twitter alone controls content moderation policies, which often generates controversy either way. Too tight, too loose – there‘ll always be disagreements.
-
Algorithms – Twitter‘s AI determines what you see and what gets promoted. Often optimized purely for "engagement" without considering harms.
-
Privacy – Owning all user data raises concerns around exploitation or misuse for ads targeting. Remember Cambridge Analytica?
With decentralization, Bluesky wants to tackle these root issues:
-
Censorship – Rather than a centralized authority, censorship disputes can be put to a community vote. Additionally, interoperability between different networks reduces reliance on any one.
-
Algorithms – Bluesky intends transparency around algorithms recommending content, allowing feedback. Goal is "health" not just engagement.
-
Privacy – User owns and controls own data. Details around data sharing and usage maintained on blockchain.
This aligns with the larger movement advocating that users should control their digital lives – not big tech companies.
The big idea? Decentralization shifts power away from centralized platforms and towards users.
But how exactly does it enable decentralization? That brings us to…
Blockchains and Protocols – The Quest to Decentralize Social Media
So how can you actually build a decentralized network? Turns out, blockchain provides the perfect backbone.
Remember that a blockchain allows digital assets and data to be verified and stored in a decentralized manner, without powerful middlemen. It‘s what runs cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
Here‘s how decentralized social media can similarly harness the power of blockchain:
-
Users have authentication tied to blockchain wallets – protecting identity and guarding against bots.
-
Posts and connections get cemented transparently onto decentralized ledgers instead of company databases.
-
Value-add activities from content creation to moderation are embedded in the protocol, allowing participants to earn value.
In this manner, blockchains enable decentralizing all aspects of social networks – content, data, identities, policies, payments. Power shifts from platforms to users.
However the details are still being ironed out by Bluesky and other players in this domain. But decentralized protocols have seen great success powering open layers like the Internet itself.
Key point is – blockchain paves the path to reconcile centralized platforms with user control.
Too Soon to Call: Battling Twitter‘s Head Start
Given the nascency of blockchain-based social networks, it may be too soon to call them Twitter-killers just yet.
After all, Twitter is still growing after a 15-year head start in building network effects. Bluesky will need to spur developer and user adoption from zero.
However, an open model aligns better with internet ideals. And funding is flowing into projects determined to prove that decentralizing social interaction is the way forward.
So will Bluesky gather momentum as developers rally around its protocol? Could we one day seamlessly mingle our Twitter feeds with decentralized "skeets"?
Too soon to say – but the faceoff between centralized incumbents and decentralized challengers will be one to watch!
I hope mapping out Twitter vs Bluesky has shed some light on their key differences, and the real-world implications. Now you can make a more informed choice between the two alternatives!
