I watched it happen in real-time this year: writers leaving Twitter in droves.

Not because they couldn't find readers anymore. But because the platform stopped respecting what writers actually need—a home for their ideas that belongs to them.

The problem with Twitter, and platforms like it, isn't that they don't work. It's that you're renting mental real estate. The landlord can change the rules, delete your audience, or sell your data. And writers—people whose work is their livelihood—can't afford that uncertainty.

So writers are asking the right question: What's a better home for my ideas?

Why Writers Are Leaving Twitter/X

Let me be direct about what broke for writers on Twitter.

First, there's the algorithm problem. Twitter used to be chronological. You tweeted, and your followers saw it. Simple. But now? The algorithm decides. You could write something brilliant and reach almost nobody. Meanwhile, some viral garbage gets ten million impressions.

For a writer trying to build an audience, this is maddening. You can't earn visibility through consistency anymore. You have to gamble on virality.

Second, there's the ownership problem. You've spent years building an audience on Twitter. But they're Twitter's audience, not yours. If Elon decides to suspend your account (he's done it). If he decides to change what tweets are visible (he's doing that constantly). If he decides to charge for the API and shut off third-party tools. You lose everything.

Third, there's the incentive problem. Twitter wants engagement, not quality. It rewards hot takes over thoughtfulness. A 280-character joke gets more reach than a nuanced thread that took you an hour to write. The platform isn't optimized for writers—it's optimized for addiction.

And finally, there's the noise. Twitter is loud. You can't have a real conversation anymore. There's too much spam, too many bots, too much vitriol. It's exhausting.

I talk to writers constantly, and this is what they say: "I want somewhere I can write, know my audience can find my work, and not feel like I'm playing an algorithm game."

What Writers Actually Need

Before we talk about alternatives, let's define what writers actually need from a platform:

1. Reliable discovery. If I publish something, my regular readers should be able to find it. Not through an algorithm's whim. Through RSS, through an email list, through a direct link. Something predictable.

2. Ownership. My words should be mine. Not locked into someone else's platform. Not subject to their terms of service. I should be able to export my work, or move it, or delete it.

3. Low friction. I shouldn't have to fight the tool. I should be able to write, hit publish, and move on. Not optimize a title for the algorithm. Not write in a specific format. Not perform for engagement.

4. An audience that's mine. This goes back to ownership. I need to be able to contact my readers directly. Not through Twitter's notifications. Not through their algorithm. Through my own email list or feed.

5. Minimal maintenance. I don't want to run my own server. I don't want to debug deployment issues. I want to write, not tinker.

6. Freedom to write long. Sometimes a thought takes 500 words. Sometimes it takes 2,000. Twitter forces you into artificial brevity. A writer's platform should let thoughts be as long as they need to be.

The Alternatives (And Their Limits)

Let's be honest about what's out there.

Bluesky is the Twitter replacement that got the hype. And it has potential. But it's still centralizing your audience on someone else's platform. Better moderation, better UX, but the fundamental problem remains: you don't own your relationship with your readers.

Mastodon is the federated option. Full decentralization. But it's complex. You have to pick a server. You have to maintain your own instance if you want full independence. For most writers, that's too much friction.

Threads is just Meta's Twitter clone. Same problem, different landlord.

Substack is actually interesting for writers. It's built specifically for them. But Substack takes 10% of revenue, and it locks your audience into their email system. If they change their policies, you're stuck.

Medium tried the Creator Economy angle. But they've become a subscription service where you have to pay to read good writers. That's not great for audience growth.

LinkedIn is where professionals hang out. But it's corporate. It's not a place to write thoughtfully about craft or ideas.

And then there's the traditional blog. Your own website with WordPress or Ghost. That gives you full ownership and control. But it's heavy. You have to manage hosting, SSL certificates, backups, security patches. Most writers don't want that overhead.

The gap is real: You want to own your platform, but you don't want to maintain infrastructure.

Why Jottings Exists

I built Jottings specifically for this gap.

The core idea is simple: a platform that respects writers.

It's not a social network. It doesn't have an algorithm. It doesn't gamble with your visibility. You publish, your RSS feed updates, your email subscribers get notified (if you set that up), and it's done.

It's built on static site generation, which means your site is fast. Not "fast for a web app"—literally impossible to make faster. And it means your site is secure. No database to hack, no attack surface.

But here's what matters for writers: it's yours.

You own your subdomain (mysite.jottings.me). You can add a custom domain. You get all the standard writer tools: tags, RSS feeds, JSON feeds, an archive, a sitemap. Your site works in 10 years because it's just HTML files. No dependency on some company's API staying stable.

You can export everything—your entire site as static files. You can use that HTML anywhere.

And the friction is gone. You write in a simple editor. You hit publish. Your site updates in seconds. No configuration. No tweaking. No feeding the algorithm.

How Jottings Compares

Let me be direct about where Jottings sits compared to other options:

vs. Twitter: We don't have an algorithm. We don't sell your data. You own your work. We will never change your feed's visibility based on what gets engagement. That trade-off is permanent.

vs. Bluesky: We're not a social network. We're a publishing platform. No followers, no algorithm, no timeline. If you want community interaction, Bluesky is probably better. But if you want to own your audience and publish thoughtfully, we're simpler.

vs. Substack: We don't take a cut. We don't lock your audience into our email system. You have full control over how readers discover your work. We're cheaper, too—free to start.

vs. WordPress: We don't require you to manage hosting or updates. Your site is automatically fast and secure. We handle all the infrastructure. But you get the same ownership and portability.

The trade-off we make is intentional: we're optimized for writing and publishing, not for social engagement or community building. We're not trying to be everything. We're trying to be the best tool for one thing: publishing ideas that are yours.

For Writers Specifically

If you're a writer, here's what I want you to know:

The years you've spent building an audience on Twitter are valuable. But they're not portable. Your followers are Twitter's followers. Your reach is Twitter's reach.

You need a home that's actually yours. Not a platform that rents to you and can evict you at will.

That doesn't mean you can't use Twitter. I do. I post there, I engage there. But my real work—the essays I'm proud of, the ideas I've thought through—those live on my own site. Twitter is the publicity. My site is the archive.

Jottings is built for that. You write something substantial. You publish it. It's yours, permanently, in a format that will work in 30 years. And if people want to follow your writing, they can subscribe to your RSS feed or email list. No algorithm between you.

The Bottom Line

Writers have better options now than they did two years ago.

But the best option isn't another social network trying to compete with Twitter. It's stepping off that hamster wheel entirely.

Your ideas deserve a home where you're not gambling with visibility. Where you own the relationship with your readers. Where you can write long, or short, or weird, without the algorithm punishing you.

That's what we're building.

Ready to move your writing somewhere that's actually yours? Jottings is free to start. No credit card required. Publish your first jot and see what it feels like to own your platform. Try it now.