Elon Musk's X Sees Popularity Slide After Election — While Bluesky Makes Gains

Forbes - Mar 24th, 2025

Elon Musk's social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, has seen a decrease in U.S. user traffic following the November presidential election, while competitor Bluesky experienced a rise in user engagement. According to Similarweb data, X's daily web visits have dropped by an average of 8.4% and daily active users by 7.2% since November. In contrast, Bluesky's web visits have increased by 21.5% and active users by 2.3%, maintaining a count above 1.5 million since the election. Despite these shifts, X remains significantly more popular, with 25 million daily active users compared to Bluesky's 1.5 million.

The election period sparked a surge in social media usage, with X benefiting the most, peaking at 46.5 million daily active users on Election Day. Musk's active presence on the platform, marked by numerous posts, likely contributed to this spike. However, Musk's recent controversies, including criticism over his political affiliations and actions, have not significantly impacted X's dominance in the social media space. Bluesky, co-founded by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, is positioned as a viable alternative with features like user blocking, appealing to those dissatisfied with X's policies, yet it still commands only a fraction of X's traffic.

Elon Musk X (Formerly Twitter) Bluesky Social Media Traffic U.S. Presidential Election Digital Market Intelligence

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a detailed comparison of user traffic trends between X and Bluesky, supported by data from Similarweb. It is timely and addresses topics of public interest, such as social media dynamics and the impact of Elon Musk's controversies. The article is clearly written and structured, making it accessible to a general audience. However, it could benefit from additional source diversity, transparency regarding data collection methods, and more in-depth analysis of the controversies mentioned. While the article has the potential to influence public opinion, its impact is limited by the lack of expert commentary and interactive elements to engage readers further. Overall, the article is informative and relevant but could be strengthened with more comprehensive sourcing and analysis.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of user traffic changes for X (formerly Twitter) and Bluesky, supported by data from Similarweb. The accuracy is high as the figures for user traffic and trends are clearly stated, such as X experiencing a 34.2% drop in daily web visits since Election Day. However, the article would benefit from additional verification of these figures directly from Similarweb or other independent sources. The mention of Elon Musk's controversies aligns with known public events, but the impact of these controversies on user engagement on X is not quantitatively supported in the story.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view of the competition between X and Bluesky, presenting both platforms' growth and decline in user traffic. It compares the two platforms fairly, noting that despite Bluesky's growth, X remains more popular. However, the story could include more perspectives from industry experts or users to provide a fuller picture of the social media landscape and potential biases in user preferences.

Clarity

The article is clearly written, with a logical structure that guides the reader through the comparisons between X and Bluesky. The language is straightforward, making the information accessible to a general audience. However, the inclusion of additional context or definitions for technical terms like 'daily active users' might further enhance understanding for readers unfamiliar with social media metrics.

Source quality

The primary source of data is Similarweb, a reputable digital market intelligence company. However, the article does not diversify its sources, relying heavily on Similarweb's data without corroboration from other analytics firms or expert commentary. Additionally, while the article mentions The Washington Post and Forbes, it does not provide direct links or detailed attribution for these references, which could enhance source credibility.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind the data collection from Similarweb. It does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may affect the reporting. Including more context on how Similarweb gathers its data and any limitations of this data would improve transparency. The article also does not mention whether any efforts were made to contact X or Bluesky for comments, which would add depth to the reporting.