We’d forgive you, in the not-so-distant past, for writing off Bluesky as just a fringe social network. But today, expectations could not be more different, as evidenced by the fact that the comparison with Facebook is justified. Let’s see if Bluesky can handle the bright lights.
Similar product, different world
Bluesky and Facebook may share the same industry, but their origins couldn’t be more different. Launched by Mark Zuckerberg in 2004, Facebook began somewhat modestly as a networking site for college students but evolved over the next decade into the global phenomenon we know today. With billions of active users each month, Facebook has become deeply — and sometimes controversially — integrated into everyday life, whether keeping up with family and friends, consuming trending content, or participating in virtual yard sales.
On the other hand, Bluesky is growing into the site originally intended for the platform. Bluesky, created by Twitter in 2019, was a proof of concept for a new decentralized social networking protocol known as the AT (Authenticated Transfer) protocol. In other words, everything from content moderation to user accounts will not be controlled by any single entity, unlike Facebook and most other social media platforms. Bluesky launched by invitation-only in 2023, then public in 2024, and has seen tremendous growth since then.
The way each platform approaches community building reveals stark contradictions in their social media philosophies. Facebook’s approach to community focuses on personal connections — family, friends, and other people we encounter in real life. The platform encourages closed groups, event planning, and sharing life updates with your existing social circle.
This focus on personal connections extends to Facebook features, such as:
Birthday reminders and celebration posts Family relationship indicators Timeline memories and friendship anniversaries Event planning with RSVP function Private group chats and video calls
Bluesky takes a markedly different approach. Instead of focusing on existing relationships, it focuses on connections based on interests and public discourse. The platform’s design encourages users to discover and engage with content and conversations based on shared interests rather than personal connections. This results in a more dynamic but perhaps less intimate social experience.
Sorry, Utah Jazz fans.
Community structures also vary greatly. Facebook groups are often closed entities with strict membership rules and moderation, while Bluesky groups form more organically around hashtags and shared interests. Facebook also emphasizes privacy settings and granular control over who sees your content, while Bluesky generally maintains a more public-facing approach to social interaction.
Additionally, Bluesky’s implementation of the AT protocol theoretically allows for interoperability between different social networking services, something Facebook has historically resisted. This means that users are likely to interact with content and users across different platforms implementing the same protocol, creating a more open and connected social media ecosystem.
Same colour, different… other
When it comes to design and user experience, both platforms share blue as their primary color but diverge significantly, especially in their approach to content delivery and interaction.
Facebook’s algorithm-based feed aims to maximize engagement by showing you content that it thinks you will find interesting based on your behavior, connections, and interaction history. Although admirably personal, this can lead to a so-called “echo chamber” effect, where users primarily see content that matches their existing views and interests.
Well…sometimes it’s personal.
Bluesky’s style of presenting content is more straightforward and transparent. The platform allows you to customize your experience by choosing to follow feeds and adding them to your home page. This provides a content experience that is almost entirely under your control, although it may require more active curation to optimize your homepage.
Of course, you don’t have to think deeply into the algorithmic differences to see other differences between the two platforms. Facebook uses a deep menu system with many features and options, while Bluesky prefers a simple Twitter-like interface that focuses on basic social networking functions. Facebook offers integrated messaging, marketplace, and other services, but Bluesky offers simplified posting and interaction mechanisms. To this end, there is a clear preference for Bluesky for text communications, while Facebook offers a rich variety of content and posting formats.
Screenshots from Facebook Marketplace
Future (money) versus present
Nowadays, it’s fair to say that the biggest difference between these platforms lies in their approach to monetization, and therefore data and privacy. Facebook’s business model is based on advertising revenue, which itself relies on collecting a large amount of user data. This has been associated with many controversies over the years, including:
The Cambridge Analytica scandal, which affected millions of users. Multiple data breaches exposing personal information. Issues with third-party app data sharing. Questions about political advertising and misinformation. Track users across websites and other apps.
Bluesky takes a completely different approach to monetization. As a public benefit corporation, it prioritizes making a positive impact over maximizing profit. The platform currently operates without ads and emphasizes user privacy and data ownership through its decentralized nature, with the possibility of offering optional premium features soon, creating a revenue stream via monthly subscriptions.
Can Bluesky really replace Facebook?
Whether Bluesky can replace Facebook right now depends largely on what you’re looking for in a social media platform.
Facebook may be better if you need to:
Simple communication with personal connections Comprehensive event planning features Integration with other Meta Product Marketplace functions
Bluesky might be better if you prioritize:
Interest-based networks Minimum algorithmic intervention Open source development Privacy and data ownership via decentralized infrastructure
As it stands, the goals of these platforms do not directly overlap. Since Facebook already has a huge user base, Meta can test new features and services to help the platform continue to evolve. On the other hand, Plosky offers a glimpse into the “old Internet,” reminiscent of the early days of Twitter, where people around the world could easily share their thoughts about anything and everything.
For many users, the ideal solution may be to use both platforms to their respective strengths: Facebook for maintaining personal connections and activities like organizing events or selling items via Marketplace, and Bluesky for public discourse, interest-based networking, and algorithm-free content discovery. . There’s no harm in trying something new — especially considering how much the world of social media has changed nowadays — and there’s no harm in keeping what’s familiar.
