Post

I think the primary factor that led to Bluesky fumbling becoming the next Twitter was pandering to early Twitter nostalgia. There's a very vocal minority who want a return to the chronological timeline based algorithm-free self-curated experience of the 2010s internet. 🧵 1/5

The problem is, everyone moved on. Social media is driven by algorithms now, and that's what the overwhelming majority of users are used to and expect. So even if you build the perfect 1:1 clone of early Twitter, it just fails every time. At the time that was all there was, so people enjoyed it. 2/5

On the modern internet where I can trust an algorithm to find me the content I like, the chronological timeline is an objectively subpar experience. It's a whole lot of work to manually find and follow accounts, just to see every their every post, instead of just the ones you're interested in. 3/5

It's not really an issue of personal preference, either. When you prioritize chronological feed, that impacts new user's ability to find content they like, and creator's ability to get reach. The only people who benefit are the early adopters who built huge networks and reach. 4/5

I'm not clear on how feed ordering preference is not a ... Personal preference. Sure, maybe there should be better UX over feed ordering choice, but it seems to fundamentally be a personal preference, no?

While I agree with that, I'm a bit lost on how it connects with your earlier posts and I focus on, "is this not just a UX issue?".

It's simple. It impacts discoverability and reach for everyone. What value is a social media platform if it's difficult to find users to follow and difficult for people to find you? The whole platform feels like it'd be better off as an early Facebook clone where we all mutually follow eachother.

I feel you're sincere so I apologize if I'm severely missing something here. Also for sounding like a broken record. I'm entirely missing how this isn't a UX issue? If users can control what they see in the way they want, and if mainstream feeds lead to growth (which I agree with) the why 1/2