Scientists say X (formerly Twitter) has lost its professional edge — and Bluesky is taking its place

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.

Free daily newsletter

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.

In contrast, users reported that Bluesky was meeting many of their professional needs. Like Twitter in its earlier days, Bluesky offered a space for learning, networking, and public engagement. Over 94 percent said they used Bluesky to stay informed about research in their field, and nearly 88 percent used it for professional networking. A majority said the new platform was more useful than X for these purposes.

The researchers also explored why people chose to try Bluesky. Nearly half said they were invited by a colleague or saw others in the science community making the shift. Many viewed Bluesky’s features — such as stronger moderation tools, less algorithmic interference, and more control over what appears in their feed — as more aligned with their professional goals.

Others said they were simply trying to avoid X’s drawbacks. More than a quarter said they moved to Bluesky because of what they perceived as a rise in extremism on X, and many explicitly named Elon Musk as a reason for their departure.

“The degree to which the scientific community’s experiences mirrored my own was surprising,” Shiffman told PsyPost. “I knew that for me, Twitter had become unusable, but the extent to which hundreds of surveyed experts strongly agreed with me on almost every point was surprising. You rarely see that kind of strong agreement in surveys.”

These results provide new evidence to support what other studies and media reports have been suggesting for some time: that X’s role as a hub for academic communication is fading. A previous study documented a noticeable drop in academic activity on X after Musk’s acquisition. That research tracked over 15,000 academic accounts and found a significant reduction in tweets, especially original posts and quote tweets, starting in November 2022. Verified users — typically more established academics — were especially likely to reduce their engagement.

Both studies indicate that changes to how X is managed and moderated have had measurable effects on academic use of the platform. The new survey adds further weight to this idea by showing that scientists are not just using X less — they are actively replacing it with another platform.

What makes the current study distinctive is its focus on Bluesky as the replacement. While earlier data showed general declines in X use, this survey points to a specific alternative that scientists are embracing. And unlike the earlier study, which focused on activity levels, the new survey captures users’ motivations and perceptions, offering a more detailed view of what is driving this migration.

“For many years, Twitter was the leading platform used by academics for a wide variety of purposes, including public education about science,” Shiffman explained. “I was a Twitter power-user and evangelist for a decade, and I trained thousands of scientists how to use the platform. Changes to the platform made by Elon Musk, including changing the algorithm to promote extremist views and changes to harassment policy, have made Twitter almost unusable for professional purposes, and academics are abandoning Twitter in droves. Fortunately, alternatives exist, and I, along with many other academics, prefer Bluesky of the available alternatives.”

The authors note that the survey was limited to users who had already made the switch from X to Bluesky, or were using both platforms. This means it does not account for those who may have stopped using social media altogether or migrated to other platforms. Because the survey was shared primarily through one author’s network, it may reflect the perspectives of those within particular academic communities more than others.

Another open question concerns whether Bluesky can support the same level of diversity that once defined the science community on X. Movements like Black Birders Week and Queer in STEM gained traction through Twitter’s large, visible networks. It remains unclear whether Bluesky can foster similar grassroots engagement. The authors suggest this should be the focus of future research, particularly if scientists want to ensure that new digital spaces remain inclusive.

There is also the issue of platform longevity. Whether Bluesky can maintain momentum over time — or whether users will need to shift again — is uncertain. But for now, it appears to offer what many researchers were missing from X: a sense of community, professional utility, and control over their online interactions.

The study, “Scientists no Longer Find Twitter Professionally Useful, and have Switched to Bluesky,” was authored by David S. Shiffman and Julia Wester.