A new study published in Integrative and Comparative Biology suggests that scientists are leaving X (formerly known as Twitter) in significant numbers due to its declining professional value. The survey of over 800 researchers and science communicators indicates that many now find Bluesky to be a more effective platform for networking, outreach, and staying updated on research. The findings suggest a significant shift in how scientists interact online, with Bluesky emerging as a preferred space for professional engagement.
Twitter, once considered the central gathering place for scientists on social media, has changed dramatically in recent years. The platform, now officially called “X,” was purchased by Elon Musk in late 2022. Since then, changes to how the platform is moderated and how content appears in users’ feeds have raised concerns among many users, especially academics.
Reports have pointed to a rise in misinformation, conspiracy theories, and harassment, particularly directed at minority groups. These shifts appear to have made the platform less welcoming and less useful for professional tasks. As Twitter’s character evolved, so too did the willingness of researchers to remain active on the platform.
In its place, Bluesky has gained attention as a new space for academic interaction. Although other platforms like Threads and Mastodon have also positioned themselves as alternatives, Bluesky appears to be the primary destination for scientists migrating from X. Against this backdrop, researchers set out to document whether scientists were truly abandoning X and whether Bluesky was filling the gap.
“I am a scholar of public understanding (and misunderstanding) of science and the environment, and have long been fascinated by where people learn things about nature. Social media has become one of the leading sources of information about the world, but the social media landscape is changing, and I wanted to see how my professional colleagues were adapting,” said study author David Shiffman, a marine biologist and public science engagement specialist based in Washington, D.C, and author of Why Sharks Matter.
To investigate these questions, researchers distributed a survey to professional scientists, science communicators, and educators who had used both X and Bluesky for work-related purposes. In total, 813 individuals participated. The survey asked when participants joined each platform, how they used them, and how their experiences had changed over time.
The responses showed that X had once served a wide range of professional purposes. Nearly all respondents had used it to learn about developments in their fields, and most had relied on it for networking and public outreach. Many also used it for job postings, research promotion, and casual professional conversation.
However, those same users reported a sharp decline in the usefulness of X. Roughly three-quarters said the platform was now “much less useful” for networking and science communication. Two-thirds said it was less helpful for keeping up with developments in their field.
The vast majority described their experience on Twitter as increasingly unpleasant, citing irrelevant content, ads, spam, extremist posts, and a loss of meaningful engagement. Some described ethical discomfort with continuing to use a platform that appeared to tolerate, or even amplify, harassment and misinformation.
In terms of actual usage patterns, only 11 percent of respondents said they still actively use X. Nearly 40 percent had deleted their accounts entirely. Almost half said they still had accounts but rarely used them.
... continue reading