Twitter usage among scientific researchers has declined significantly, with more than half of users reporting a decrease in their time spent on the platform or leaving altogether. A survey conducted by Nature found that out of the 9,200 researchers polled, over 47 percent had reduced their usage of Twitter, while around 7 percent had quit the site entirely. Additionally, almost the same number of researchers said they had joined at least one new social media platform in the last year.
Mastodon, an open-source platform, was the most popular alternative social network among researchers, with approximately 47 percent stating that they had started using it. LinkedIn and Instagram followed closely behind, attracting 35 and 27 percent of researchers respectively. Interestingly, Meta’s Threads, a Twitter competitor which launched shortly before the survey, claimed the fourth spot.
The data from Nature’s survey aligns with previous findings from Pew Research, indicating a decline in Twitter usage among previously active users. This shift highlights the evolving nature of Twitter over the past year.
Twitter has traditionally held great importance for researchers and scientists, serving as a platform to publicize research and foster scientific debates. The platform’s researchers have also been valuable sources of verified information, a significant aspect considering the battle against misinformation. Moreover, Twitter’s vast user data has been instrumental for researchers studying various fields from public health to linguistics.
However, much of this has changed. Many users now feel that their voices are drowned out on a platform that prioritizes content from verified, paid accounts. Furthermore, Twitter’s decision to make its API inaccessible to most researchers due to high costs has further alienated the scientific community. While not all researchers are prepared to give up on Twitter completely, it is evident that the company’s strategies have resulted in a significant proportion of scientists seeking alternatives.
No comments were provided by X in response to Nature’s request.
