Back in 1982, the English band The Clash delved into the complexities of a tumultuous relationship, pondering the question: “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” Fast forward to today, and a similar quandary echoes in the minds of researchers as they navigate their increasingly intricate relationship with X, formerly known as Twitter.
Following his acquisition of the platform in October 2022, Elon Musk initiated a significant overhaul at Twitter, changing its name to X, reducing its workforce, as well as introducing premium subscription services. Alterations also extended to the algorithm governing post visibility, the elimination of content moderation rules, and a revamp of the user verification process. Notably, previously suspended accounts, including those of Donald Trump and Kanye West, were reinstated.
The platform found itself under scrutiny, facing criticism for power centralisation, toxicity, and the proliferation of fake accounts promoting science denialism. Göran Bolin from Södertörn University notes, “X has become a very hateful space, full of trolls”.
X has become a very hateful space, full of trolls.
Indeed, research has demonstrated a heightened prevalence of hate speech on Twitter during Musk’s tenure, leading to the Tesla billionaire issuing legal threats against those examining these patterns.
Sohail Ahmed Khan from the University of Bergen highlights yet another critical concern: information disorder. He states, “X is deteriorating. There has been a growing presence of misinformation being shared on the platform”.
In response to these challenges, researchers are curbing their use of the platform, seeking refuge elsewhere. The spotlight is turning towards a relatively new platform – Bluesky.
A Plausible Alternative
Established in 2019, Bluesky has positioned itself as a microblogging social medium, closely resembling Twitter’s interface. Initially confined to a select group of tech insiders, the platform gained substantial momentum with influential figures like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez joining its ranks shortly after its launch. As of December 2023, Bluesky boasts a user base exceeding 2.2 million, with a waitlist surpassing 1.9 million individuals.
The medium operates on an exclusive invite-only basis, utilising the waitlist as an alternative avenue for access.
Researchers find the platform appealing for a range of reasons. Many point to the platform’s user-friendly features, such as control over timelines and content moderation, along with its open-source and decentralised nature. Bolin highlights less toxicity on Bluesky: “It seems to be set up in a way that keeps trolls out. The environment is friendlier. While things might change in the future, for now, it feels like a space without hostility”.
Aske Kammer from Roskilde University shares, “as a user, I think Mastodon [ed.: another platform of decentralised nature] is a much more mature product than Bluesky and has better functionalities. Also, I prefer how it is open source. However, its on-boarding process has been almost hostile to new users, and I think that unfortunately scared a lot of people away when they first went searching for an alternative to Twitter. Bluesky does a better job in looking and feeling like a social medium”.
Differing slightly in emphasis, Bolin states: “I find Mastodon quite difficult to navigate. Compared to Blue sky, the interface of Mastodon is messier, and it’s more difficult to find people and discussions to follow”.
A Wait and See Approach?
Despite a significant number of researchers transitioning to alternative platforms like Bluesky, not everyone is inclined to make the shift. At least not yet.
The decision to stay on X is often influenced by various factors. X has been a longstanding and pervasive platform within academic circles, providing a space for real-time engagement and the dissemination of research findings.
The challenge of rebuilding connections on a new social medium, and the potential uncertainty associated with emerging platforms such as Bluesky may serve as deterrents.
Some scientists caution against leaving X, as it may disconnect academics from crucial audiences like journalists and policymakers. While internal discussions might benefit from migration to another platform, there’s a risk of diminishing the impact of academic work if broader audiences don’t follow suit, they argue.
Marc Gallofré, recent doctorate recipient at the University of Bergen, expresses scepticism about scientists abandoning X entirely: “Much like consumers persisted in buying Nike products despite sweatshop accusations, researchers are unlikely to completely abandon X, even after acknowledging the harm that arises from concentration of power”. He adds that “established professional connections, visibility, and reach that the platform offers may be perceived hard to beat”.
Kammer keeps his X account despite not actively using it, primarily to safeguard against a potential hostile takeover of his username. However, he also harbours the hope that X will find its way again – “It may be a vain hope, though”, he adds.