Bluesky Isn't Twitter, and That's the Best Thing About It: Why Blocking and Curating Are Acts of Joy, Not Censorship

Critics Call Bluesky an Echo Chamber, Bluesky Users Call Critics Annoying: A Standoff for the Ages.

Bluesky, the rising star of social media platforms, has become a sanctuary for the weary, the meme-loving, and the chronically online seeking a quieter corner of the internet. But as more users migrate from Twitter’s scorched earth to Bluesky’s sunnier pastures, a certain breed of “experts” have sounded the alarm: “echo chambers are forming”.

“Why are Bluesky users blocking political views they don't share instead of engaging with them?” asks one article, breathlessly. “Isn’t the point of social media to foster dialogue and debate?”

To which the average Bluesky user might reply, “No, the point of social media is to share a picture of my cat without being called a Marxist.”

Twitter’s ‘Debate Culture’ Was Just Screaming in the Void

Let’s dispel a myth: Twitter was never a sophisticated forum for rigorous debate - especially after the Musk takeover. It was more like a 24-hour pub brawl where someone inevitably showed up with a megaphone and a conspiracy theory about lizard people.

Bluesky, by contrast, offers users the opportunity to not engage. For the first time in years, people are logging into a social media app without worrying whether they’ll accidentally trip into a 300-reply thread about the ethics of pineapple on pizza. Instead, curating their own feeds, seeing and engaging with what they want to see, trading jokes, points of views, sharing hobbies, and occasionally pondering why toast always lands butter-side down.

To its critics, this seems like a betrayal of the sacred mission of social media. But Bluesky users have a simple response:

“I didn’t join this app to argue. I joined to enjoy myself. If I wanted endless debates, I’d go to a family dinner.”

Blocking isn't censorship, it's self care

For some reason, the mere act of blocking someone online has become a flashpoint in the culture wars. Critics see it as a refusal to engage with differing opinions, a retreat into ideological bunkers. Bluesky users see it differently: as a way to avoid the emotional equivalent of stepping in dog poop.

What these critics fail to grasp is that not every platform needs to be a gladiatorial arena for ideological combat. Sometimes, people just want a space to unwind. Bluesky users aren’t blocking their “opponents” because they fear debate; they’re blocking them because they’ve finally realised that not every opinion deserves their time—or their mental bandwidth.

Echo Chambers: The Scourge or the Goal?

Ah, the dreaded echo chamber, where people can share ideas without constant interruptions from contrarians. The term is thrown around as if it’s inherently bad, but let’s consider this: do you complain about your group of friends being an echo chamber just because they all agree that Die Hard is a Christmas movie?

Echo chambers are not the enemy. They’re places where people find community, affirmation, and, most importantly, peace. The critics act like Bluesky users are huddling in bunkers whispering forbidden truths. In reality, they’re trading recipes, sharing obscure band recommendations, and occasionally discussing how many chickens it would take to defeat a bear (the current consensus is 73).

Bluesky Isn’t Twitter—It’s the Anti-Twitter

The underlying issue seems to be that critics are viewing Bluesky through a Twitter lens. On Twitter, every post is a potential battleground. Bluesky, however, operates on an entirely different premise: what if social media could be... pleasant?

Bluesky isn’t trying to be a digital town square where everyone yells their opinions into the void. It’s trying to be a cozy coffee shop where people can talk about their day without someone jumping in to demand a 12-point debate on economic policy.

Critics argue that this approach is “stifling discourse.” Bluesky users argue that the discourse was never that great to begin with. “If I want to engage in deep, meaningful debate,” one user said, “I’ll reread War and Peace. Social