Rewinding four years, the social media landscape today appears like a reversed mirror image of the past.

Between 2020 and 2021, the most prominent alternative platforms – or so let’s call them – bore names like Gab, Parler, and Truth Social surged in popularity. These platforms primarily served as havens for individuals banned from mainstream social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – often for violations involving extremism, conspiracy theories, or inciting violence. This was also the reason behind their surge in popularity, which is today retained only by Truth Social, backed by his founder Donald Trump.

At the time, Silicon Valley platforms were tightening their enforcement of content moderation policies. The tipping point came after the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, which led to Trump’s unprecedented ban from Twitter while he was still in office. 

This marked the beginning of the end for the idea of social media as a single platform  for all people – from which the improper definition of “digital town square” comes from. Platforms prioritized curbing misinformation and toxic discourse that for many years ran rampant, turning social media into less and less enjoyable places to be on. In other words, they started to get rid of the rotten apples in an effort to keep users – and advertisers – engaged.

Yet, as often happens, just when “political correctness” – for lack of a better term – seemed to have won, the tide started turning fueled by broader political changes in the West and partially contributing to them.

Triggering this reversal was Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in October 2022. Musk rebranded it as X and shaped it to his image and controversial – and often hypocritical – likeness and implemented a free speech absolutist approach. Previously banned figures, including Donald Trump and neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes, were reinstated. Simultaneously, X dismantled much of its content moderation infrastructure, causing the platform to become increasingly associated with right-wing discourse. This led to a mass exodus of users, a decline in investments, and ultimately a significant devaluation of the company.

Back then, while X’s future looked bleak, Mark Zuckerberg saw an opportunity. On July 5, 2023, Meta launched Threads, a Twitter alternative that promised a “healthy” social media environment, as described by product manager Chris Cox. However, to remain a more pleasant space, Meta made a drastic and controversial decision: it largely avoided political content and divisive social issues. This came at the cost of the influence that had once made Twitter a central hub for breaking news and political discourse.

Despite some controversies and its lukewarm reception, Threads grew steadily, reaching 275 million monthly users by October 2024. Meanwhile, X/Twitter continued bleeding users. Then came the moment that few believed – or wanted to believe – would happen: Donald Trump won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with Elon Musk as his right hand.

Unlike in 2016, this time, Trump’s victory was met not with Silicon Valley resistance but with compliance. Tech giants bent the knee before the emperor and quickly adapted to the new political landscape, dismantling diversity and inclusion programs, abandoning fact-checking, and loosening content moderation. 

But this raised a fundamental question: if Threads was no longer the “wholesomely managed” alternative to X but rather a near-identical clone, what purpose did it serve?

As uncertainty loomed over the future of social media – even before Zuckerberg decided it was more convenient to lick Musk’s shoes instead of stepping on his toes. But during the months that preceded Trump’s victory and inauguration, one trend became clear: Musk’s takeover of X had set off an irreversible wave of fragmentation.

By November, what started as a quiet exodus from X had turned into a flood. But instead of flocking to Threads, many users gravitated toward more “niche” alternatives: privacy-conscious and decentralized platforms like Mastodon and, most notably, BlueSky. Originally conceived within Twitter by Jack Dorsey as an experiment in decentralized social networking, BlueSky became independent following Musk’s takeover.

After Trump’s re-election, it rapidly gained traction with each passing week, surpassing 30 million users by early 2025. While this number remains small compared to X and Threads, BlueSky’s real success lies in attracting the so-called “Twitter-sphere” – a community of journalists, academics, activists, and progressive politicians and others that had made Twitter indispensable for real-time global discourse.

As Ian Bogost wrote in The Atlantic, BlueSky “feels more like the early days of social networking than anything else in recent memory.” However, the flight of the liberal world from X and its mass landing on Bluesky inevitably raises concerns: what will the result of this “social media secession” be? Will this open the floodgates to the right-wing counterinformation of X – which still remains far more influential than BlueSky? Is the politically based fragmentation of social media creating a filter bubble to the nth degree, further worsening that polarization and inability to communicate with the political opponent to which social media itself had already contributed?

Some argue that concerns about filter bubbles – and the impact of social media on our information and communication diet – are overblown. Others believe abandoning X is the right choice: any attempt at responding to the far-right and participating to “marketplace of ideas” is an illusion since the platform’s algorithm is manipulated to favor certain narratives. In other words, why play a game if the rules are rigged?

Nevertheless, the most significant consequences lie elsewhere. Regardless of whether this shift is good or bad, the fragmentation of social media is rapidly becoming a reality. In the past, people joined platforms simply because “everyone was there” – as was the case with Facebook first, then Instagram. Today, however, users increasingly gravitate toward platforms that align with their cultural or ideological perspectives, seeking spaces where they can engage in discussions with like-minded individuals who, despite their differences, share certain fundamental values.

Another key shift is that those marginalized from mainstream social networks are no longer the far-right but rather the more left-wing users. While right-wing voices are regaining prominence on X (and, to a lesser extent, on Facebook and other platforms), liberals are retreating to alternative platforms like BlueSky and Mastodon. This represents a kind of “digital resistance,” highlighting broader political and cultural shifts across the West.

Exploiting the key features of the fediverse – an ecosystem which leverages open-source protocols that can communicate and have an active role in their governance – platforms like Mastodon and BlueSky allow users to create digital barricades against unwanted actors. 

For now, this characteristic that mainly belongs to Mastodon, while BlueSky – which uses a different protocol – is still in its embryonic stage of the fediverse. However, this approach has its limits: how many users are willing to contribute to these platforms by giving their time, effort, and often financial contributions? Without traditional data collection and advertising models, can these networks grow? Can they be something more than mere digital barricades?

As Noema points out, “Without centralized governance, there is no single authority to mediate systemic issues or consistently enforce rules. Decentralization places a heavy burden on individual instance administrators, mostly volunteers, who may lack the tools, time or capacity to address complex problems effectively.”

The change has been so rapid and unexpected that, until now, few have paused to consider the long-term implications and consequences for a progressive world that, in its most digitally active circles, has suddenly found itself on the run, seeking refuge.

Meanwhile, again as a result of the new political climate, X’s prospects are improving: advertisers are returning, banks are selling Musk’s Twitter-related debt at higher prices than expected – indicating renewed confidence in the platform’s future – and revenue is rebounding.

It took time, but Elon Musk appears to have won his bet: he has eliminated his ideological opponents, welcomed back extremists and conspiracy theorists with open arms, and, against all expectations, may soon be proven right from a financial point of view as well. Meanwhile, the so-called digital resistance is still struggling to find a way out of its self-imposed exile.