Bluesky as a space of progressive radicalization, constraint and consolation

Bluesky continues to fascinate me. An X/Twitter alternative, Bluesky attracted millions of users at the height of Elon Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration. I joined the site over a year ago and continue to be active on it, yet have been sceptical about the claims of some of the site’s champions.

But after some time on the site, a more developed appraisal of Bluesky is possible. Given the very progressive profile of its users, the site has long attracted the charge that it is an ‘echo chamber’. People have different positions on this but, after a year on Bluesky, I have noticed something interesting. Rather than merely attracting progressives, the site appears to be making users more progressive and ideologically constrained (the latter refers to the restriction of the range of views which it is acceptable to hold). Often, Bluesky achieves this through pile-ons which act as examples to others and, recently, two people I know were subject to these.

Bluesky is far from the only site on which this is happening – as many observe, there are similar trends among conservatives on X – yet its case is a unique phenomenon and merits our attention. Specifically, I am interested in the case of Bluesky in the light of wider challenges to progressive ideology. However one understands progressive ideology – as regular readers will know, I distinguish between social justice ideology (which emphasizes identity and direct action and extends concepts of harm) and liberalism (which stresses freedom, the equal basis of political participation and the legitimacy of rules) yet regard both as progressive – its challenges are considerable.

Since its high-water mark of 2020, social justice ideology has struggled with popularity and some have declared its demise. This may be overstated – as we argue in our forthcoming book – yet the ideology has undoubted problems with public acceptance. For example, the campaign for transgender self-identification has long been unpopular and, as voters have become more aware of relevant issues, this trend seems to have accelerated.

The case of liberalism is more complex. Since the 2000s, this ideology has been showing its age – to some extent, this explains the rise of social justice ideology in the 2010s – but, in recent years, problems have accumulated. These issues are diverse – the success of Trump’s attacks on liberal democracy reflect weaknesses of liberalism – yet liberal positions on immigration have been the most vulnerable to challenges. On this issue, public opinion is often unfavourable and the topic has become more salient. Across the West, liberals are struggling to defend historic achievements.

In such circumstances, how do/should ideologies react? Many on Bluesky advocate ‘doubling down’, i.e. reasserting central tenets and bringing the fight to opponents. As we have seen, progressive radicalism and constraint are prominent features of the site. Certainly, there are historical precedents which support this approach. During inter-war crises, many progressives held firm and were rewarded with post-war hegemony. But as ever, historical comparisons are problematic. Today’s progressive movements are very different from such forebears. Many of us doubt that contemporary attacks on liberal democracy have the vigour of the 1930s and, in any case, post-war liberalism was very different to the pre-war variety, reflecting critiques of pre-war liberalism.

And a future renaissance of progressive ideologies is not inevitable. One would be brave to predict the end of all progressive ideologies – liberalism is hundreds of years old and has survived many crises – yet parts of contemporary progressive ideologies have long-term problems with public acceptance. From this perspective, less charitable interpretations of Bluesky are possible.

For certain scholars, ideologies go from youth, in which they are vigorous challengers; to mid-life, in which they are dominant and accepted as common sense; to old age, in which they are moribund and assailed by challengers. How does an ‘old’ ideology behave? Often, there is a tendency to deny the difficulty of external conditions and reassert old certainties among sympathetic fellows. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn wrote about the end of scientific paradigms in similar terms. This behaviour is tempting; it is easier than confronting and negotiating difficult conditions.

In the age of social media, progressives have unprecedented opportunities to associate with like-minded people. Bluesky might be interpreted in these terms. As we have seen, one of the central dynamics of the site is the reassertion of those progressive beliefs which are under the greatest external threat. For many users, no ground may be conceded on issues such as immigration and transgender rights and the mere suggestion of this places one outside the fold. In the UK, the problems of this approach are particularly apparent; it involves bitter and quotidian opposition to the first social-democratic government in years.

Institutions perform multiple functions and Bluesky is no exception. But interpreting the site as a space of progressive consolation, i.e. one in which progressives convince each other that no concessions need be made to profound external challenges, resolves a key riddle of the site.

Of course, the adoption of such positions (or any) is the prerogative of Bluesky users and I admire individuals who dig their heels in; the tendency to follow political fashions is undesirable and a key charge against Starmer. However, I am less impressed when people impose constraint on others and, more broadly, suspect that progressives are making key strategic mistakes; successful movements make concessions to the times. If Democrats are to resist Trump’s attacks on liberal democracy successfully (as I sincerely hope), the party would do better to be a broad church.

Admittedly, conservatives are undergoing similar processes of radicalization on X and I agree that these are much more sinister. Yet this is a separate issue. Such processes may entail certain problems for conservatives – some have observed the tendency of politicians to mistake opinion on X for popular sentiment – but, currently, conservatives do not seem to have such systematic challenges with public opinion.

Recently, Bluesky has had problems with engagement, some asserting that the site is in terminal decline. Arguably, this reflects the problems which I have discussed in this piece. Despite these challenges, there is little prospect of a mass return to X and, in the medium term, sites like Bluesky will be with us.

Whether they are good for progressive movements is another question.

---

If you enjoyed reading this, do think about subscribing! Subscription is free – all it means is that you’ll receive a weekly email. But every new subscriber makes me very happy 😊 😊 😊