Bluesky and Threads showed us very different visions for a post-X future

Bluesky and Threads, alternative social platforms, differ in moderation and content strategy.

: Bluesky and Threads present contrasting visions for text-based social networks post-Twitter, with differing approaches to moderation and content strategy. Threads, led by Meta, uses an algorithmic feed and controls content tightly, whereas Bluesky promotes user governance and a reverse chronological feed. Bluesky fosters link sharing, enhancing traffic, while Threads follows a structured content approach. Both platforms face financial growth challenges, but Bluesky emphasizes a democratic model, contrasting Threads’ attachment to Meta’s ad strategy.

Bluesky and Threads showcase different models for text-based social networks after Twitter's decline. Bluesky prioritizes user control with a reverse chronological feed and moderation customization, contrasting with Threads' algorithmic feed and centralized moderation under Meta's domain. Bluesky is engaging in fostering link sharing, leading publishers to report increased traffic compared to Threads.

Meanwhile, Threads aligns closely with Meta's algorithmic model, maintaining tight content oversight and prioritizing structured content visibility. Meta's influence is evident as Threads mirrors its usual ad-driven approach, raising concerns about content control and potential commercialization, similar to other platforms under its wing. This centralized content strategy situates Threads within Meta’s extensive advertising framework.

As both platforms look to 2025 for financial sustainability, Bluesky's focus is on non-ad revenue models while staying true to its democratic ethos. Despite being smaller, Bluesky’s user-centric governance and openness to third-party development have cultivated a unique community dynamic. However, Threads’ massive scale and Meta's resource allocation present significant competition, challenging Bluesky to retain its distinctive open-source vision and user empowerment.