A social media presence might be essential, but with social media platforms in a state of flux, which is the best one for a photographer to call home? The fast-growing Bluesky platform could be a breath of fresh air for photographers tired of their work being hidden behind a pay-to-play paywall.
I’m going to come right out and admit upfront that I’m a fan of the fairly new Bluesky social media platform—or perhaps I should qualify this by saying, “so far, so good, at least.”
Looking to fill the unmet needs of many social media users who are tired of the relentless exploitation of their content by traditional social media platforms, and of their lack of control over how that content is used and presented, the Bluesky platform aims to provide a decentralized and more egalitarian social media forum that strives to place the needs of its users over corporate greed.
The decentralized structure of the platform is apparently driven by the desire to offer its users more control over their own content, as well as making it “billionaire proof”—heading off any attempt by some well-heeled individual or group to buy it out from under the feet of its users and turn it into some kind of toxic tarpit whose owners impoverish their users while simultaneously (and metaphorically) feeding off their flesh to enrich themselves. I know—this sounds like some kind of far-fetched nightmare from a dystopian world very different from our own, but maybe it could happen!
I have been using Bluesky for a short time now, and I have to say that I am quite surprised and impressed at how refreshingly different it feels from the other, more traditional social media platforms. As an example of this, when I post one of my photographs, I typically receive ten times more responses from my few followers on Bluesky than I do from my orders-of-magnitude larger followings on the other platforms. So when this video about using Bluesky as a photographer appeared in my YouTube feed, I felt I had to share it with you.
Andy Hutchinson is a straight-talking photographer from down under, whose enjoyable, no-nonsense style is featured front and center on his YouTube channel of the same name. In his latest video, Andy describes his experience using the relatively new Bluesky social media platform as a photographer and offers some valuable and very practical advice to photographers who might be interested in establishing a presence on it.
Before you watch it, I should just warn you that Andy does not mince his words in any way, and his sometimes strident opinions about the various social media platforms are often peppered with some colorful language that you might not want your kids to hear. You have been warned!
No. A picture I posted on X some years ago got 1,100 favourable reactions. I posted the same pic on Bluesky two weeks ago and it has received 7 likes so far.
Bluesky is just an escape for the unhinged children throwing a tantrum because X is now a fair open playing field for ALL, not just catering to the left. Bluesky will go the way of Vero that thought they can take on Instagram. Look at them now.
--- "I have been using Bluesky for a short time now, and I have to say that I am quite surprised and impressed at how refreshingly different it feels from the other, more traditional social media platforms."
Really? It literally looks like X/Twitter. Even the comment, repost, and like buttons are virtually identical.
--- "As an example of this, when I post one of my photographs, I typically receive ten times more responses from my few followers on Bluesky than I do from my orders-of-magnitude larger followings on the other platforms."
Can you gaslight any harder? The responses on your Bluesky image posts are pretty much identical to what you are getting on Instagram. Not ten times more.
'X is now a fair open playing field for ALL, not just catering to the left.'
Firstly Twitter/X never 'catered to the left', it has always allowed all sorts of comments from many different political leanings. Secondly it is now fast turning into a rightwing echo chamber and it's no wonder people are leaving it for Bluesky. Many people have left X due to the barrage of abuse they receive just for daring to have a different opinion to others. I don't call 'a fair open playing field' allowing no holds barred abuse to thrive on X, this especially with anyone posting any comments to do with politics.
It's obvious as Bluesky is much newer, posts are receiving less traction than on X. Threads is another platform where interactions are still very low compared to other platforms.
That's not true and you know it. The Twitter Files showed that Twitter, under the former owner, shadow banned and outright deleted people who didn't comply with their ever growing censorship rules. An example would be posting things that were contrary to the official narrative about COVID. This was all under the guise of "fighting disinformation" but it's censorship nonetheless.
You either have a platform where EVERYONE can speak freely (barring incitement to violence or threats) or you do not. If you have an open platform then you will get trolls and the like.
So to be open and free means allowing people to post dangerous disinformation, unverified 'facts', hate-mongering and conspiracy theories, quite often via a paid for blue tick which helps get them more views? It's one thing to criticise Twitter in it's former guise for it's somewhat overzealous censoring but in its current X form which is basically a free for all for disinformation to spread and trolls to prosper, it has gone completely in the other direction. You may see this as more freeing but bear in mind Musk used it to campaign for Trump and spread lies and misinformation. Many people with progressive views are leaving the platform because of the barrage of abuse they face every time they post a comment. How is that allowing everyone to speak freely?
X was used in the UK last August by people posting messages encouraging people to go out and riot and burn down Mosques, all because they wrongly believed a young man who murdered someone was an illegal Muslim immigrant. That is precisely the definition of incitement to violence. Some were jailed because of their comments but it didn't stop a massive backlash happening against their convictions. X is anything but a free open platform available to everyone. It's a microcosm of echo chambers and anyone not on board isn't made to feel welcome.
Let me break this down for you.
In recent years, many things labeled as “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” were later revealed to be true or, at the very least, plausible:
1. Hunter Biden’s Laptop: Initially dismissed as Russian disinformation, it was later confirmed to be real, containing exactly what was alleged. Even as the media discredited it, the laptop was in FBI custody for over a year.
2. Origin of COVID: For a long time, the media insisted COVID didn’t originate from a lab in Wuhan and pointed to bats or wet markets instead. Eventually, they walked back those claims, possibly because acknowledging the lab origin implicates U.S. funding of gain-of-function research.
3. COVID Severity: The media pushed urgent vaccination, emphasizing the high risk of death. In reality, the survival rate was 99.7% for most, with severe outcomes mainly in those over 70 or with multiple comorbidities. To add to the hypocrisy, the same people who scolded you for not taking the vaccine in the spring of 2021 were the ones who, in August of 2020, said they wouldn’t take it because it was, quote, “Trump’s vaccine.”
4. Vaccine Efficacy: Initially touted as “safe and effective,” vaccines were presented as a way to prevent transmission entirely. Even the administration claimed you wouldn’t catch or spread COVID if vaccinated—a claim that proved false.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Yet, despite repeated instances of misinformation from trusted sources, many people continue to believe what they’re told without question. The word “disinformation” itself only gained widespread usage in the last few years—check Google Trends if you’re curious. That’s why freedom of speech matters: it gives everyone the chance to question and uncover lies. Some of us care about being lied to, even if others don’t.
As for hate online, it’s not a one-sided issue. Conservatives are frequently labeled as neo-Nazis or conspiracy theorists for expressing dissenting views. Hate flows in both directions, yet only one side seems to be scrutinized.
--- "Firstly Twitter/X never 'catered to the left', it has always allowed all sorts of comments from many different political leanings."
Wrong. Can you have your head in the sand any deeper. While under Jack, they suppressed a lot of conservatives views even from news outlets, cough *hunterbidenlaptop* cough
--- "Secondly it is now fast turning into a rightwing echo chamber"
As opposed to a unhinged looney left wing echo chamber and a safe place for pedos and mentally ill men that think they are women?
--- "I don't call 'a fair open playing field' allowing no holds barred abuse to thrive on X,"
Oh cry me river, which you seem to be really good at. Your version of abuse is like when we call out sick men for dancing naked in front of children. You people turn a blind eye to it; even celebrating it, we do not.
Free speech is the new normal. Get used to it.
Okay, it is kind-fresh, it is different, it is every bit a Twitter clone without ads or algorithm influence but it is no way better to any of the other platforms when it comes to photos, quality and engagement.
The part about it being "without ads or algorithm influence" is a pretty big deal IMHO. And I think we all know by now that Meta and X are just going to keep getting worse, not better.
You are correct, except Threads has no ads either (yet).
But this was about as a platform for photographers and as such I don't see it, as it essentially a platform boosted by ex Twitter souls lots of the old traits popping up, quality IMO is better on Threads than on BS.
Bluesky is just a small bet on the future. It's nothing today, but has the potential to evolve into something useful and enjoyable. Meta on the other hand has proudly rebranded itself as a stream of rubbish, and X is being reshaped by a person trapped in some sort of perpetual, dysfunctional adolescence.
Once again, the artilce was about photography + quality.
But oh now, you gotta go off the rails.
You do understand that BlueSky opened well before Threads and struggled till they were able to 'adapt' to things others were doing?
I know as I have had an account from their launch.
But back to my initial response that you jumped on..."is no way better to any of the other platforms when it comes to photos, in quality and engagement".
I don't get it. Why is Fstoppers pushing an article that they acknowledge is strident and worse, is politically biased? By now I'm tired of reading pieces in the "news" media that push a political agenda -- especially on a site for photographers. Part of why I shoot is to get beyond political BS and connect directly with my environment. And if Fstoppers wants to push an agenda, I'm not interested.
I wonder if I can import my Vero profile over.
Yeah....all picture are very amazing....