Why Threads Feels Smaller Than Bluesky Despite Its Larger User Base !

What's Behind the Size Perception Gap Between Threads and Bluesky?

You might've noticed that Meta's Twitter alternative, Threads, has a significantly larger user base than Bluesky - despite the latter recently crossing the 20 million mark. Yet, somehow, Threads feels more intimate, which is why many folks prefer it over Bluesky. But what's driving this perception?

One common explanation is that Threads suppresses news and political content, stifling its growth. While that might be a contributing factor, I think there's more to it. Threads is actually taking a unique approach to building a community - one that's fundamentally different from Twitter and Bluesky. The issue is, this approach is still evolving, and Threads' leadership hasn't clearly articulated their vision. As a result, it's being misinterpreted as a failure to replicate Twitter's success, rather than a deliberate attempt to create something new.

The Old Twitter and New Bluesky Approach: A Tale of Two Feeds Bluesky features an algorithmic feed that ranks posts based on various metrics, including those from users you don't follow. However, it doesn't default to this feed, and most users seem to prefer the chronological feed instead. This feed shows you everything from everyone you follow, in the order it was posted. Threads, on the other hand, has a chronological feed, but it's not exactly easy to access, and the platform often switches you back to the algorithmic "For You" feed.

So, what's the difference? Old social networks like Twitter used to thrive on vitality - if a post got popular, the algorithm would make it even more popular. Chronological feeds work similarly, as you see posts from outside your network when your friends repost them. The more a post is seen, the more likely it is to be reposted, and the more likely others are to see it. Bluesky operates in a similar way, creating a sense of one big community.

In practice, this means that even with niche communities on the platform, using Bluesky feels like being part of a larger conversation. This is how Twitter used to drive the broader culture, even with a relatively small active user base. What was happening on Twitter was always a hot topic, and many of its most active users were influential outside of the platform.

The Threads Approach: A Different Drumbeat Threads takes a different path. Its algorithm is anti-viral, focusing on showing you content that's closely related to your interests. It rarely ventures outside of those topics, creating a sense of smaller, barely overlapping communities. You're essentially hanging out in a few small rooms, while hundreds of millions of other users are invisible to you.

Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it's an interesting approach to social media, and one that many people seem to enjoy. After all, Discord communities and web forums have always been popular, and it's because people like being part of smaller groups with shared interests. Threads' approach is reasonable, and its user numbers suggest that lots of people appreciate it.

But if you're looking for that old-school Twitter experience - the sense of being in one big conversation where your remarks can go viral and gain you a ton of followers - you might prefer Bluesky. Neither approach is inherently better; they're just different. And in a post-Twitter world, we're finally seeing some experimentation with the basic structure of social media. It's an exciting time, and one that could lead to some fascinating innovations.