Communities on alternative social media platforms like the fediverse and Bluesky tend to create narratives about how their networks grow. For both networks the narrative is fairly similar: Big Tech platforms and their leaders behave badly, which in turn causes users to search for more ethical alternatives. This narrative is visible in the fediverse’s understanding of the 2022 Twitter Migration and Bluesky’s explosive growth in 2024. But what happens when these migration waves disappear, even though the conditions for them do not? Musk’s continuous egregious actions have not led to new growth for the fediverse and Bluesky, indicating that our narratives of growth need updating. Meanwhile, the continuous growth of Threads shows that cultural impact might just matter more than user counts.

top 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] leraje@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

My own take on it is that growth is not very important in terms of how a network develops. The only truly successful growth is that which happens completely organically. Worrying about why one service has 'stopped' growing is pointless. Those who are unhappy jump ship - those who remain are likely people who are never going to and/or bots or influencers who aren't interested in being part of a community just finding a way to exploit it.

I would propose so-called 'smaller' networks (such as the fediverse) concentrate on quality not quantity. That has the duel benefit of making the experience for current users even better and makes the network attractive to those who are outside looking in.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 3 points 15 hours ago

I think with that is an unexpected inflection point that looks inevitable in hindsight where one network dies and another thrives. It happened with Digg and Myspace. You if you focus on long term organic growth it can happen but unknown when

[–] underline960@sh.itjust.works 8 points 16 hours ago

[T]he reason why people care so much about Twitter and finding a good replacement is not because of total user numbers: Twitter was always the smallest of the Big Tech platforms after all. Twitter and X matter because of its unparalleled ability to generate culture and shape politics. Twitter and X are the places where elite consensus is formed. It is the dominant platform for shaping our collective understanding of the world. That’s why control over X’s algorithm (and chatbot) is so valuable: it is not about telling individuals what is correct, but it is about influencing what people think about what other people think.

So Twitter/X is where people higher in the hierarchy go to publicly perform their opinions, while people lower in the hierarchy sort themselves into their teams.

That sounds like the classical Greek democracy I remember from school.

But hearing it laid out like this ("elite consensus") sounds instinctively gross.