A spectre is haunting the social media platform known as X—a spectre of exodus. But the migration from the platform once known as Twitter to alternatives like Bluesky has also sparked warnings about another spectre–the echo chamber. As users disillusioned by X’s toxic atmosphere and its right-leaning algorithmic tilt celebrate the refreshing camaraderie of Bluesky, critics accuse them of retreating into a liberal echo chamber—one that simultaneously reinforces X’s conservative bubble.[i]

Is this merely a reshuffling of ideological battlegrounds, or something deeper? And as users, how should we navigate the pull between seeking enjoyable, affirming experiences and the push to engage in ideological sparring with those who challenge our worldviews?

The dream about a universal online public sphere

The allure of social media has always been its promise of creating a universal online public sphere—one where individuals from all walks of life can interact and engage in meaningful discourse in a proper marketplace of ideas. However, this dream has always been fraught with problems. The notion of an ideal public sphere, as envisioned by Jurgen Habermas, while inspiring, struggles with the reality of structural inequalities. Habermas’ idea of the public sphere is predicated on rational-critical debate among equals, yet in social media environments, power imbalances and the influence of algorithms hinder true equality.[ii]

Differences in power, vulnerabilities, and the dynamics of social media make it increasingly difficult for a balanced public sphere to emerge. Instead of being a space for democratic dialogue, the online public sphere often becomes a fragmented battlefield where the loudest voices dominate. The majority, and those with various privileges, thoroughly enjoy themselves, while the most vulnerable are silenced and attacked. Attempts to rectify the problem have been tested, such as rules and mechanisms protecting trans people and other minorities on platforms like Twitter. With new ownership came new rules, however, and on X under Musk, everyone is fair game.

Human nature getting in the way

Despite our aspirations for inclusivity, humans are naturally drawn to like-minded communities. The very design of social media platforms exacerbates this inclination. Algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, provide content that reinforces existing beliefs, encouraging selective exposure and confirmation bias (Sætra tyranny). We humans tend to seek information that corresponds with our preexisiting beliefs, and we interpret any information in ways conducive to supporting the same.[iii]

These tendencies lead to the formation of echo chambers where dissenting voices are filtered out.[iv] Our desire to avoid cognitive dissonance makes us inherently susceptible to echo chambers, a phenomenon intensified by algorithms that curate what we see based on our past interactions, creating an environment in which our beliefs are seldom challenged.[v]

The bliss some people experience at Bluesky, then, is portrayed by some as the bliss found in an extreme echo chamber. As those most opposed to the right-wing politics increasingly pushed upon them on X flee and enter Bluesky, they find themselves in the comfortable surroundings of a space in which most people largely agree with them. They escaped the same space, and are now rebuilding an alternative. No wonder there is joy. In addition to this, Bluesky is actively providing the means to block, moderate, and filter out accounts the users don’t want to see, further promoting the idea that the Bluesky community is some liberal heaven for those unable to hear opposing thoughts.

What’s driving the move from X to Bluesky?

But the exodus from X is arguably not only driven by discomfort caused by exposure to ideas different from one’s own. Sure, users are tired of conspiracies, toxic discourse, how the platform is increasingly tilted towards right-wing ideologies, and that its owner expressly supported Trump in the presidential election and will now take a role in Trump’s government. But what stands out in this migration is not only a rejection of the opinions prevalent on X, but also a clear rejection of the style of interaction—the hostility, the combative nature, and the algorithmic amplification of animosity.

Habermas’ public sphere was a space for rational deliberation, not all-out trench warfare and trolling. When people are constantly attacked and feel that they have to fight, it’s no wonder that they’re not having too much fun. Some people enjoy this immensly, however, and see trolling and conflict as great enjoyment. Some even see conflict as crucial for politics, but the theories seriously promoting agonistic theories are not primarily referring to the verbal warfare on platforms like X and 4Chan.

So the move to Bluesky, for many, is about seeking a different kind of environment in which to express ideas and ideology, and to engage with both similar- and different-minded people differently. They want a platform where interactions are civil, where they are not constantly under attack for expressing views that diverge from the dominant narrative of the platform.

This phenomenon underscores a crucial aspect of online engagement: while ideological diversity is necessary for a healthy public sphere, the manner in which these ideologies interact is equally important. In essence, people are leaving X not because they wish to escape differing opinions but because they seek refuge from the style of engagement—one that rewards aggression over reason, volume over nuance. Saying that people should stay in such a place rather than attempt to build something better seems misplaced. If so, perhaps we should discuss a duty for all reasonably-minded people to frequent 4Chan as well?

What to do?

The debate over echo chambers reflects larger societal tensions about engaging with those who see the world differently. Platforms like Bluesky may offer temporary relief from X’s toxicity, but they risk further entrenching ideological divides if they do not actively cultivate inclusive, empathetic environments.

The dream of a universal public sphere may be unrealistic, but it doesn’t mean we should abandon efforts to improve online interaction. Platforms like Bluesky provide an opportunity to recalibrate. To avoid becoming another ideological silo, Bluesky and its users must commit to fostering spaces where diversity of thought coexists with respect and empathy.

This requires thoughtful platform design, including moderation tools that protect users without completely silencing dissent. Policies should encourage civil dialogue, where debate aims for understanding, not victory. Safety should mean freedom from hostility, but not necessarily freedom from differing perspectives. The goal should be spaces where vulnerability—both in identity and ideas—is respected, and ideological engagement becomes an opportunity for growth, not entrenchment.

Ultimately, whether we choose to echo chamber or not is not just about the platforms we migrate to; it’s about how we, as users, navigate the complexities of online interaction. The ideal of a universal public sphere may be unattainable, but by embracing ethical platform design and personal responsibility, we can strive for digital spaces that promote genuine understanding across divides—spaces that offer more than the comfort of like-minded company and foster the possibility of meaningful, transformative engagement. If we can do anything to contribute to such an outcome, perhaps we should.

Henrik Skaug Sætra is a researcher in the field of the philosophy and ethics of technology. He focuses specifically on artificial intelligence, and much of his research entails interrogating the various linkages between technology and environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

[i] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/21/maga-cockroaches-left-wing-echo-chamber-rival-elon-musk-x/

[ii] Sætra, H. S. and Ese, J. (2023). Shinigami Eyes and Social Media Labeling as a Technology for Self-care. In Sætra, H. S. (Ed.), Technology and Sustainable Development: The Promise and Pitfalls of Techno-solutionism. Milton Park: Routledge.

Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. MIT Press.

[iii] Sætra, H.S. (2019). The Tyranny of Perceived Opinion: Freedom and Information in the Era of Big Data. Technology in Society 59, 101155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101155

[iv] Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150-160.

[v] Festinger, L. (1962). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Iyengar, S. and Hahn, K.S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39.