BlueSky appears to be having a moment. A lot of the growth is people leaving X, which under Elon Musk’s ownership, has become less and less attractive to many  users. A tipping point seems to have been reached in early November, when the number of users on BlueSky jumped to over 20 million.

There have been articles by Very Serious People who say that BlueSky is an echo chamber, full of leftwing exiles from social media. But I think BlueSky’s is particularly attractive to people who have a bias towards egalitarianism, which derives from the premise that all people are equal in fundamental worth or moral status and should be accorded equal rights and treatment.

BlueSky users have remarked on the striking similarity between BlueSky and the early days of Twitter. This resemblance isn’t coincidental; it stems from the presence of egalitarian structures that once defined Twitter but have since been eroded or monetized.

Early Twitter fostered a sense of community and open dialogue. Its free API allowed developers to create a vibrant ecosystem of third-party apps and user-driven customization.  The short, text-based interface meant that it could work where bandwidth was constrained. The platform felt less like a corporate product and more like a digital public square where anyone could participate and contribute.

However, as Twitter grew, it gradually shed these egalitarian elements.  The once free API became progressively more expensive, pricing out independent developers.  Algorithm-driven timelines replaced the chronological feed, prioritizing engagement and advertising revenue over user agency.

BlueSky, was founded as a benefit corporation and as such, it is can use its profits for the public good, and not prioritize shareholder value. It, even more than Mastodon, seems to be recapturing the spirit of early Twitter. This has resonated with many users who prefer a social media experience that prioritizes community, openness, and user empowerment. To achieve this, BlueSky was designed using egalitarian principals, which affects the way that users behave at scale.

But before we get into that, we need to talk about human history, and why we have both egalitarian systems such as democracies, and authoritarian systems such as kingdoms.

Our primate ancestors, like chimpanzees, lived in (and I’m really simplifying here) hierarchical social structures dominated by an “alpha male.” This top-down power dynamic, where strength and aggression often determine social rank, has been a common thread throughout human history.  We see it reflected in the power structures of kingdoms and empires where a single ruler or a small elite group holds absolute authority – “The Law of the Ruler.”  This system offers stability and clear lines of command, but it can also lead to oppression, abuse of power, and stasis.

However, humans also have a history of forming egalitarian communities. Particularly in resource-scarce or challenging environments, early hunter-gatherer societies often favored cooperation and shared decision-making for survival. In these groups, leadership was more fluid and based on skills and respect rather than dominance. This system, closer to the “Rule of Law,” emphasizes fairness, individual rights, and collective well-being.

Most people have the ability to “code-switch” between hierarchical and egalitarian. Businesses are almost always hierarchical, while interacting with friends or in social movements is usually egalitarian in some way. There are good reasons for this. A community debating about how to fix a problem will likely come up with a better solution than any one member could, even it takes a while. An army can act quickly in a coordinated way, but it does what the leader thinks, not what the troops believe. An enlightened leader can be very effective. A despot can wreck everything.

How these different organizations handle internal threats is very different. Authoritarian systems funnel power to the ruler. The techniques used consist of things like Surveillance, Propaganda, Bribery, Threats, Prison/Exile, and Execution. The Galactic Empire of the original Star Wars trilogy shows this clearly – it’s highly organized, brutally violent, and ultimately brittle. The rebellion, on the other hand, is perpetually off-balance, arguing, resourceful, and ultimately resilient.

Anthropologist Harold Schneider describes the roots of egalitarianism as: “All men seek to rule, but if they cannot rule they prefer to be equal.” One of the primary risks to the community is when one member of the community seeks to rule. They do this through bullying and other displays of dominance. They take more than their share. After all, it’s good to be the king.

But when you’re living on an ice sheet where everyone needs to work together and there is nothing extra to go around, this is an existential threat. Rather than Surveillance, Propaganda, Bribery, Threats, Prison/Exile, and Execution, the egalitarian approach begins with Gossip and Criticism to coordinate the group, ridicule to shame the offender into behaving, shunning in case ridicule doesn’t work, and finally, if nothing else, a relative of the offender is pressured into killing them so that there is no revenge cycle of retaliation.

Most social media companies like BlueSky are hierarchies, ruled by kings – Mark Zuckerberg rules Meta. The benevolent king Dorsey of Twitter was overthrown by the Despot Elon Musk of X. These rulers use the techniques of authoritarian institutions. Users are constantly monitored; recommender algorithms promote those posts that align with the company’s mission. People are rewarded if they produce the right kind of content or can have their accounts locked or deactivated if they stray too far.

Social media platforms such as BlueSky and Mastodon are an egalitarian alternative. Their design principles provide users with more power to shape the discourse collectively with minimal manipulation from the platform itself. This manifests in several key ways:

BlueSky and Mastodon utilize chronological timelines. This simple change removes the platform’s power to prioritize or bury content, ensuring that users see posts in the order they were created.

In traditional social media, breaking the rules can lead to exile – account suspension or removal. This punishment is arbitrarily wielded at the discretion of the ruler or his algorithmic proxies, with limited recourse for the exiled. Alternatively, BlueSky provides the “nuclear block,” which lets users delete all interaction with another user, wiping any interaction from both their timelines. This is a form of shunning, and is a powerful egalitarian design choice.

Authoritarian systems often restrict information flow to maintain control. Users are incentivized to not link out of the platform, but instead keep all the content there, which helps the platform extract the maximum value from their users. Egalitarian platforms like BlueSky and Mastodon have no such restrictions. The ability to include hyperlinks means that users have the ability to use the system to make revenue for themselves, rather than simply producing content (and value) for the platform.

Free developer access to the ATproto and ActivityPub APIs offered by BlueSky and Mastodon, mean that third-party applications that integrate with the platform. This opens up entirely new forms of interaction, beyond the scope and capability of the platform’s developers. This decentralized approach deliberately diminishes the platform’s control and places more power in the hands of the community.

Many social media platforms are driven by advertising revenue, transforming users into commodities whose attention is constantly being sold to the highest bidder. This creates an environment where commercial interests often overshadow everything else. Mastodon (by design) and BlueSky (for reasons that I do not understand) provide an ad-free experience, which is a radical departure from this norm. It’s like creating a public park free from commercial billboards and intrusive marketing. Such spaces are designed to users to direct their own attention in ways that say, Times Square is not.

Throughout history, new communication technologies have often emerged as egalitarian experiments, only to be eventually co-opted by powerful forces. The printing press, initially a tool for disseminating knowledge and challenging authority, was eventually harnessed by governments and institutions to control information and maintain power. Similarly, the early internet, with its promise of open access and decentralized communication, has increasingly come under the sway of corporate giants and government surveillance.

However, with the rise of decentralized platforms like BlueSky and Mastodon, we may be witnessing a turning point. These platforms, built on open standards and user empowerment, offer the possibility of communication technology serving the people, not just those in power. It doesn’t meant that these platforms can’t be usurped, but perhaps technology is finally reaching a point where centralized control becomes increasingly difficult. To paraphrase Princess Lea, “The more you tighten your Grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers.“

One thing is for sure, there will always be the pressure to take over and rule these egalitarian communities. Running servers isn’t cheap. Which means that we need to protect these egalitarian communities. Make sure to gossip about those who claim power. Ridicule them. Block and shun them.

Kings should have no place here.