Reading and Posting in a Fractured Social Web
Reflecting on two years since Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter—widely known as “The Muskover”—it’s clear that the activity once concentrated there has scattered. My own reading and posting habits have shifted accordingly, spread across a number of networks that serve different purposes. I’m not a deeply social user of these platforms; my history goes back to Usenet in the late 1980s, where I quickly learned to avoid heated arguments. Today, my main interests are following a curated set of accounts and announcing new articles from my site.
Reading: Curated Feeds Over Algorithms
On the reading side, I prefer fixed feeds of accounts I explicitly follow. I make a point to avoid system-suggested content entirely. My carefully chosen list includes people who post interesting material—usually links to thoughtful articles or videos—without overwhelming my attention. This approach inevitably misses promising content outside my chosen circle, but any worthwhile item typically gets picked up by those I already follow. When it comes to posting, my primary use is to announce new articles or other items I think readers will find valuable. I deliberately keep my posting frequency low, and I treat every social media post as ephemeral; anything meant to last lives on my own site.
Bluesky: An Open Protocol with an Uptick in Tech
I plan to begin posting article announcements to my Bluesky account. Bluesky has seen steady growth over the past two years. I created an account early on but used it mostly for reading a few folks who migrated from Twitter—initially in current affairs and boardgaming circles. Recently, however, there’s been a notable increase in tech people posting there, which has drawn me in as a participant rather than a lurker. The open protocol is a key draw: it reduces the chance that Bluesky goes the way of Twitter. I’ve set my domain on the platform, so even if the company falters, the AT protocol offers some resilience.
X (Twitter): Not Dead, but Declining
Predictions of Twitter’s technological or financial demise haven’t come true, but its importance is clearly on the wane. A social network’s value depends on who posts there, and many have either left entirely or now post elsewhere in addition. I’m in that second camp. If I find someone posting on both Twitter and another site, I prefer to follow them on the non-Twitter platform. I’m not ready to leave Twitter completely, given my substantial follower base there, but I do encourage those who follow me on multiple sites to switch their primary subscription to another network.
LinkedIn: The Corporate Workhorse
LinkedIn is the surprise heavyweight in my routine. I avoided it for years, put off by its culture of eager connection-making. But it has grown in importance, and colleagues remarked it had replaced Twitter for them. I joined in March this year and have since accumulated just under 100,000 followers—less than my 350,000 on Twitter, but still enough to make LinkedIn my most effective channel for article announcements. The platform is annoyingly corporate, with a feed full of professional puffery and a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Notifications are dominated by “likes,” while genuine mentions and comments are harder to surface. Despite the user experience, reactions to my announcements are higher on LinkedIn than anywhere else, making it the best place right now to let people know about new material. For those who want to follow me there, I recommend using the “follow” feature; I remain averse to “connections” and use them only sparingly with close collaborators and site contributors.
The Fediverse: Open but Stalled
At the time of The Muskover, many saw the Fediverse as Twitter’s natural successor. Its federated structure meant no single owner could hijack the network, leading me to expect organizations would host their own nodes—my colleagues at Thoughtworks even set up an example. That promise hasn’t fully materialized, likely because choosing a server feels awkward and the complexity outweighs the benefit for many users. Bluesky, by contrast, is more approachable while still building on an open protocol. A small group of tech people did move to the Fediverse, and I post and follow there willingly. My responses there are far lower than on Twitter or LinkedIn, but I’ll keep posting for the foreseeable future precisely because of its open nature.
Other Networks: Niche Value and Explicit Avoidance
RSS isn’t social media in the discussion sense, but it fits my core use case: discovering interesting publications. Many people I respect maintain RSS feeds through services like Medium or Substack. I’ve long used RSS to post new material and will continue to do so.
Threads saw rapid uptake, but I’ve stayed away. I don’t want to invest in another big-tech network unless it demonstrates clear importance, the way LinkedIn did.
Facebook is effectively dead to me. I still have an account and check in occasionally, but the feed is almost entirely adverts, and its algorithm insists on reordering posts from people I follow. A decade ago it served personal contact well; now I stop by every few months and never feel compelled to return.
Board Game Geek is a niche network for hobby board gaming enthusiasts, myself included. I’ve been posting more opinions there this past year. It’s a wonderful example of a purpose-built social network that continues to prosper and serve its users well.
I also lurk in several smaller Discord and Slack groups—mostly related to board gaming—where I’m more inclined to chat. These evening conversations are a good way to unwind, and I prefer to keep that chatter out of my work context.
Final Thoughts: Dispersion Is the New Normal
Social media is now a highly dispersed medium, making it annoyingly difficult to monitor every channel. Looking ahead, I hope open protocols gain more traction. I haven’t given up on the Fediverse, and Bluesky’s progress is encouraging. For now, the scattered landscape is the reality we navigate.
