Bluesky now platform of choice for science community(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Bluesky now platform of choice for science community
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/08/more-scientists-choose-bluesky-over-twitter/
79 comments
If the poll was done _properly_, that sample size is _fine_; there’ll be a decent margin of error, but not as much as you might expect. 1k people is a fairly standard size for polls, with even very high quality ones rarely doing over a few thousand.
The real consideration was whether the poll was done properly.
The real consideration was whether the poll was done properly.
What is the sampling bias? You dont explain what it could be, and your quote doesn't give any clues about what the bias could be.
The article itself talks about this self-selection/sampling bias due to a minuscule sample size of 813 people. Reducing “science community” to such a small sample is not convincing.
Self-selections, sure, that's a risk with any and all surveys and questionnaires, which must be mentioned.
But 813? Why wouldn't that be enough? Basic stats puts that at a very healthy number for most questions, and the researchers don't raise any questions about bias about the number.
But 813? Why wouldn't that be enough? Basic stats puts that at a very healthy number for most questions, and the researchers don't raise any questions about bias about the number.
> The paper failed both to identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario)
That would not indicate bias. It's merely beyond the reach of what was in the study.
Among all the major technical benefits of Bluesky over Twitter listed in the article, I'd add two more:
* links to external web pages (your paper, your blog, your new dataset, etc.) won't cause your posts to be suppressed
* Bluesky discussions are accessible to the open web
These two features are absolutely essential for science, and perhaps if X was more like Twitter on free speech and openness to the web then scientists wouldn't have moved away.
* links to external web pages (your paper, your blog, your new dataset, etc.) won't cause your posts to be suppressed
* Bluesky discussions are accessible to the open web
These two features are absolutely essential for science, and perhaps if X was more like Twitter on free speech and openness to the web then scientists wouldn't have moved away.
It's surprising that any serious organization or person would still use Twitter in its current state.
There's exactly three reasons for people to stick to Twitter:
* They don't care/agree with the policies of the guy running it.
* Legacy reasons; either they have no reason to leave (automated org accounts keep running until something in the workflow breaks) or they have an existing community that doesn't want to move. This group will eventually leave but is currently stuck with inertia. Most "public service" accounts are in this category.
* And finally, for artists, Bluesky is undesirable as a platform because it has some very aggressive image compression compared to Twitter (2000x2000 is the absolute limit). Some are dualposting to Bluesky, but are unlikely to fully leave Twitter for this reason.
Finally, I'll note that while accounts are generally abandoning Twitter, this doesn't automatically mean they're moving to Bluesky either. A lot of those service accounts just up and vanished and just said "well, go visit our website".
* They don't care/agree with the policies of the guy running it.
* Legacy reasons; either they have no reason to leave (automated org accounts keep running until something in the workflow breaks) or they have an existing community that doesn't want to move. This group will eventually leave but is currently stuck with inertia. Most "public service" accounts are in this category.
* And finally, for artists, Bluesky is undesirable as a platform because it has some very aggressive image compression compared to Twitter (2000x2000 is the absolute limit). Some are dualposting to Bluesky, but are unlikely to fully leave Twitter for this reason.
Finally, I'll note that while accounts are generally abandoning Twitter, this doesn't automatically mean they're moving to Bluesky either. A lot of those service accounts just up and vanished and just said "well, go visit our website".
> * They don't care/agree with the policies of the guy running it.
I don't care, I care that even though I follow/get followed by CS / Math people and still see mostly far right / nazi / trump /crypto comments about everything. In even small threads about very technical stuff, always people come up with the most crazy shit. And these days the almost mandatory 'Grok, is this true/profound/worth anything/etc'. It's just annoying and maybe I shouldn't care. Don't have that experience on other platforms (mostly same following/followers as they are also there).
I don't care, I care that even though I follow/get followed by CS / Math people and still see mostly far right / nazi / trump /crypto comments about everything. In even small threads about very technical stuff, always people come up with the most crazy shit. And these days the almost mandatory 'Grok, is this true/profound/worth anything/etc'. It's just annoying and maybe I shouldn't care. Don't have that experience on other platforms (mostly same following/followers as they are also there).
Ever since Musk took over Twitter, the replies have been useless. It used to be that you can follow replies as a discussion. Now, the replies are a mix of unmarked ads, bots, and weird call-outs to Grok, and maybe all at the same time.
All the automation and algorithmic garbage crowd out actual human discussion. It's a big reason why I stopped using Twitter myself. If they want to optimize for bots and weirdos driving up engagement numbers, go for it. But that's not a service that brings me value.
All the automation and algorithmic garbage crowd out actual human discussion. It's a big reason why I stopped using Twitter myself. If they want to optimize for bots and weirdos driving up engagement numbers, go for it. But that's not a service that brings me value.
On the note of artists, I always wondered why so many artists don't use a proper gallery/portfolio in addition to social media. This could be a general art-sharing platform, one of the many niche- or fandom-specific gallery sites, or their own website. Get the audience and reach through social media, but link back to a portfolio with the originals for those who care.
X really sucks in it's current state, but it's where the things I'm interested in happen or are discussed first (eg AI state of the art, bootstrappers). There's a bunch of tech people I follow who aren't on BlueSky, Threads, etc.
Interestingly, when I glance at my Bluesky feed once a month or so, it's a lot of complaining about everything. I think I hear more about Elon on Bluesky than I do X. And yeah, I follow reasonably high-value people.
That said, I keep some sort of X exit plan in place, and I look at it a lot less than before. When the signal vs noise value shifts, I'll be done, but I'm not quite there yet.
Interestingly, when I glance at my Bluesky feed once a month or so, it's a lot of complaining about everything. I think I hear more about Elon on Bluesky than I do X. And yeah, I follow reasonably high-value people.
That said, I keep some sort of X exit plan in place, and I look at it a lot less than before. When the signal vs noise value shifts, I'll be done, but I'm not quite there yet.
It's surprising that any serious organization used it at all. It was never a good place to spend your time really.
It's sad that the science community is just moving to another walled garden rather than spawning its own network of federated ActivityPub services (eg: mastodon).
Bluesky seems to be based on an open protocol (AT Protocol), but how actually interoperable is that ? I can't find a list of non-bluesky AT protocol servers that can interoperate with Bluesky.
It's sad that the science community is just moving to another walled garden rather than spawning its own network of federated ActivityPub services (eg: mastodon).
Bluesky seems to be based on an open protocol (AT Protocol), but how actually interoperable is that ? I can't find a list of non-bluesky AT protocol servers that can interoperate with Bluesky.
Back in the 90s, every University had its own mailserver, USENET server, etc. These offered authentication to any user in the University, and each was federated with other institutions and the internet as a whole.
I'm surprised Universities haven't set up a federated network of ActivityPub servers, with each University hosting its faculty and student accounts on its server. The signal-to-noise ratio of a University-only network would be amazing.
I'm surprised Universities haven't set up a federated network of ActivityPub servers, with each University hosting its faculty and student accounts on its server. The signal-to-noise ratio of a University-only network would be amazing.
> The signal-to-noise ratio of a University-only network would be amazing
Ha; no. It would be students self-censoring to avoid anything that could draw a universities' ire... while they meet up on Discord to share their actual thoughts, cheating techniques, personal feelings, and date nights. It would be University LinkedIn.
Ha; no. It would be students self-censoring to avoid anything that could draw a universities' ire... while they meet up on Discord to share their actual thoughts, cheating techniques, personal feelings, and date nights. It would be University LinkedIn.
It was a good place to get messages out quickly - if I wanted to know that my cable company knew the internet was down, either from their direct acknowledgement or people sending messages to them, I went there. But now that I need an account to even see the comments or posts it's impractical to use.
No true scotsman's fallacy - no serious person would use X; if you use X you aren't serious.
I don't agree. There are still serious organizations and people using Twitter. I believe that to be true. I'm just surprised they haven't moved.
For example there are emergency systems or local governments that announce information on Twitter. These feel like serious organizations to me. At minimum I feel like they should be in multiple places and not just Twitter.
For example there are emergency systems or local governments that announce information on Twitter. These feel like serious organizations to me. At minimum I feel like they should be in multiple places and not just Twitter.
Ultimately Twitter is timely and has almost universal mindshare.
A few weeks ago when there was the pacific earthquake, I had family who were very close to a danger zone vacationing. Google was not sufficient for finding good local timely info as an outsider but twitter was.
I would never even think to check BlueSky or Mastodon, and my family will never have heard of them.
A few weeks ago when there was the pacific earthquake, I had family who were very close to a danger zone vacationing. Google was not sufficient for finding good local timely info as an outsider but twitter was.
I would never even think to check BlueSky or Mastodon, and my family will never have heard of them.
Things have to be posted in those other places for your regular person to have a chance of hearing about them eventually. If everyone waits for some adoption threshold to support something then it will never reach that threshold.
This makes no sense, the comment obviously implies that there are in fact serious orgs using twitter
The question that motivated the comment obviously implies that this is unbelievable for undisclosed reasons (related to its "current state.") Smarter to argue with the premise than the fluff.
I found Bluesky to be extremely hostile to AI and mostly far leftists canabalizing each other.
I don’t see it as sustainable and fewer people are using it. X is undoubtedly worse but Bluesky doesn’t appear to be the answer.
I don’t see it as sustainable and fewer people are using it. X is undoubtedly worse but Bluesky doesn’t appear to be the answer.
I don’t know that “AI hostile” is quite accurate. It’s more like it’s not blindly accepted and praised, which is different. Generally any hostility comes down to cases where it’s replacing or could replace people instead of bringing a new capabilities to the table — AI helping detect cancer or discover new treatments for example is a lot more accepted than AI taking the jobs of book cover illustrators, for example.
That… kind of makes sense? It’s logical that applications with significant downside, particularly that which impacts peoples’ livelihood, would get greater questioning and pushback. If anything I’d call into question a platform where nobody is asking these questions and wants to charge ahead with zero regard to potential ramifications.
That… kind of makes sense? It’s logical that applications with significant downside, particularly that which impacts peoples’ livelihood, would get greater questioning and pushback. If anything I’d call into question a platform where nobody is asking these questions and wants to charge ahead with zero regard to potential ramifications.
i just went on, searched bsky for variants of ai/llm/generative, and literally did not see one positive post after scrolling for several minutes (beyond some boring generative art slop, which isn't really "positive" imo).
it seems just the same sycophancy, but in the opposite way twitter is.
maybe my searches were poor so i'm curious what you see that is in any way "positive"; even given your example, searching for ai + cancer is just thousands of posts with some variant of "ai is a cancer."
it's so single note that it's no wonder that growth for bluesky has plummeted. it's just boring.
it seems just the same sycophancy, but in the opposite way twitter is.
maybe my searches were poor so i'm curious what you see that is in any way "positive"; even given your example, searching for ai + cancer is just thousands of posts with some variant of "ai is a cancer."
it's so single note that it's no wonder that growth for bluesky has plummeted. it's just boring.
There's a big difference between the grifters in AI and the builders. Grifters of all sorts quickly get pigeonholed in Bluesky off into separate communities.
There are some builders of AI on BlueSky but far fewer. It's mostly the other sciences that have migrated, because X actively suppressed that type of content on X. Its not uncommon for a Bluesky scientist to have 10x the engagement on Bluesky with a tiny fraction of the followers.
There are some builders of AI on BlueSky but far fewer. It's mostly the other sciences that have migrated, because X actively suppressed that type of content on X. Its not uncommon for a Bluesky scientist to have 10x the engagement on Bluesky with a tiny fraction of the followers.
> There are some builders of AI on BlueSky but far fewer. It's mostly the other sciences that have migrated, because X actively suppressed that type of content on X. Its not uncommon for a Bluesky scientist to have 10x the engagement on Bluesky with a tiny fraction of the followers.
I’ve seen similar patterns with some technical subcommunities on Mastodon. Low follower numbers but vastly higher engagement and overall better signal to noise ratio in the replies.
Maybe instead of there being one big platform, communities will settle into different ones.
I’ve seen similar patterns with some technical subcommunities on Mastodon. Low follower numbers but vastly higher engagement and overall better signal to noise ratio in the replies.
Maybe instead of there being one big platform, communities will settle into different ones.
I don't have that experience. But perhaps I am far less forgiving of the christofacist community on twitter that seeps through EVEN though I follow not one of them and none follow me. It's easier to read past the artsy crowd for me at least even if I don't agree. But AI hostile? Guess it depends if you don't post AI 'artwork' all day but just interesting things you are doing then I have not seen anyone complain.
The replies are what make it hardest to remain on xitter. You’ll tap into some totally innocuous post and randomly get hit with a reply that’s nasty by even shady imageboard standards.
That's been my experience of most Mastodon instances, too (except the ones explicitly created to counter that, which don't tend to get much traction).
I follow some actual far-leftists on Mastodon, and they would probably find your assessment of Bluesky to be pretty funny.
im there, I use Claude every day, am not a far leftist. come on over and there will be two of us.
Can't help but notice arstechnica seems to have an anti-Elon agenda.
I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
I recall them posting articles claiming Twitter's content was important for historical reasons (agree on that) and would disappear once Elon took over, which afaik, didn't happen.
You forgot to add "yet" unless you can predict the future will 100% accuracy. Only once it's sold to someone else can you really say he didn't do it.
The data's longevity was probably helped by being a potent source of hate to power Musk's AI
The data's longevity was probably helped by being a potent source of hate to power Musk's AI
so deeply controversial when a guy doing nazi salutes in front of crowds and illegally dismantling key pillars of US foreign policy finds himself unfavored by the media
X hides discussions. If somebody sends you a link you can't see the discussion without an account and logging in and being extensively tracked.
Not sure what you mean about anti-Elon bias. This was straightforward reporting of the truth. If reality has an anti-Elon bias then perhaps it's not bias.
Not sure what you mean about anti-Elon bias. This was straightforward reporting of the truth. If reality has an anti-Elon bias then perhaps it's not bias.
Before the take over you couldn't see the linked tweet at all.
(it was not always this way though)
(it was not always this way though)
I don't believe that's true, in that visibility only disappeared after Musk's takeover. It's hard to find old news with modern search engines, but here's one article from 2023, post-Elon, that matches my memory:
> If you currently try to access Twitter without logging in to your user account, you’ll be unable to see any of the content that was previously available to the wider public. Instead, you’ll meet a Twitter window that asks you to either sign in to the platform or create a new account, effectively blocking you from viewing tweets and user profiles or browsing through threads unless you’re a registered Twitter user.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-u...
It looks like it was pushed through by claiming the site was under attack, and then access was never restored. In any case, it was one of the things that pushed me off X.
> If you currently try to access Twitter without logging in to your user account, you’ll be unable to see any of the content that was previously available to the wider public. Instead, you’ll meet a Twitter window that asks you to either sign in to the platform or create a new account, effectively blocking you from viewing tweets and user profiles or browsing through threads unless you’re a registered Twitter user.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/30/23779764/twitter-blocks-u...
It looks like it was pushed through by claiming the site was under attack, and then access was never restored. In any case, it was one of the things that pushed me off X.
Before his take-over, like 50% of my attempts to load a linked tweet in a browser failed with an error, which would sometimes, but not always, be resolved with a few refreshes. If the tweet loaded, I couldn't see the discussion, to include follow-on tweets for "tweet threads", which meant it was often useless even if I did get it to load.
He fixed all that for, like... a month. Then went back to blocking lots of content without a login.
I haven't seen the errors since then, but it is back to not showing me the discussion.
He fixed all that for, like... a month. Then went back to blocking lots of content without a login.
I haven't seen the errors since then, but it is back to not showing me the discussion.
"Bias" has come to mean "idea I don't agree with". Also see: "agenda".
Reality has an anti-Elon bias
owned by conde nast its just normal MSM stuff
Ah, yup. Didn't know this.
> Condé Nast media brands include Vogue, The New Yorker, Condé Nast Traveler, Condé Nast Traveller, GQ, Glamour, Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, Pitchfork, Wired, Bon Appétit, and Ars Technica, among many others.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Nast
> Condé Nast media brands include Vogue, The New Yorker, Condé Nast Traveler, Condé Nast Traveller, GQ, Glamour, Architectural Digest, Vanity Fair, Pitchfork, Wired, Bon Appétit, and Ars Technica, among many others.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Nast
Yeah just reading comments on Arstechnica articles like this one you can see the same baying mob they have on Bluesky.
Elon bad. X nazi.
Meanwhile I closed my Bluesky account because every other post is calling for violence against political opponents, gleeful over assassination and unrest and the recent beating of a doge employee.
of course plenty of terminal left wing loonies on here too as observed by the irrational downvotes
Last week:
Scientists No Longer Find X Professionally Useful, and Have Switched to Bluesky
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978815
Scientists No Longer Find X Professionally Useful, and Have Switched to Bluesky
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44978815
FWIW, Bluesky still seems unfriendly to email alias providers.
I never managed to create an account on Bluesky as one of their support email blocks certain email domains. They still have a long way to go.
I never managed to create an account on Bluesky as one of their support email blocks certain email domains. They still have a long way to go.
It's so odd that they still get to enjoy their status as a "decentralized" "open" social network when it's really just a centralized platform by definition (and it's not even their fault, there is simply no way to do what they want to do without centralization).
Sure, someone may say "the AT Protocol is open", but that means nothing because the AT Protocol is not Bluesky, Bluesky is one centralized platform that happens to "talk" that protocol (well, of course, since the "protocol" is literally defined by whatever they happen to be doing), it still controls who can be inside and who can't.
TL;DR: Nostr is a much better option for most use cases, sadly for some unfortunate reason it never got to enjoy too much attention from a wider technologist community.
Sure, someone may say "the AT Protocol is open", but that means nothing because the AT Protocol is not Bluesky, Bluesky is one centralized platform that happens to "talk" that protocol (well, of course, since the "protocol" is literally defined by whatever they happen to be doing), it still controls who can be inside and who can't.
TL;DR: Nostr is a much better option for most use cases, sadly for some unfortunate reason it never got to enjoy too much attention from a wider technologist community.
After this I expect to see a similar article saying the same for "real" scientists that go to truth social. With a sample size of 100.
> It's not just you. Survey says: "Twitter sucks now and all the cool kids are moving to Bluesky"
Ars Technica
Ars Technica
Bluesky is still trending downward in activity and has been losing popularity over the last year.
https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
If you pull out to view the full history, you'll see it's a constant series of huge spikes (e.g. in late 2024 the site more than tripled in size over about a week) each followed by a slow trend downwards, then another huge spike up further, etc.
I suspect that's pretty common for something that's been in the news quite a bit: you get occasional big jumps in attention & usage, and then only some smaller percentage of users will stick around longer term. When you're getting such big spikes in signups this is unavoidable I think - even with new users coming in, the descent from the spike overwhelms any other trends.
The interesting question is whether that settles down into a slow steady sustainable state eventually. Looks plausible but still unclear imo.
I suspect that's pretty common for something that's been in the news quite a bit: you get occasional big jumps in attention & usage, and then only some smaller percentage of users will stick around longer term. When you're getting such big spikes in signups this is unavoidable I think - even with new users coming in, the descent from the spike overwhelms any other trends.
The interesting question is whether that settles down into a slow steady sustainable state eventually. Looks plausible but still unclear imo.
This is extremely interesting. Didn't know of these stats. Would be great to be able to have twitter, mastodon and bluesky on the same graph (perhaps with different y-axes to allow comparison of their relative trends)
Threads is the one really taking off. Personally I'm not thrilled at Meta and Zuckerberg increasing their stranglehold on social media, but it seems to be the way things are going.
The weird thing about that is that very little from Threads seems to bleed out to other places. Does anything actually interesting happen there?
If Twitter & Bluesky are for thoughts, and Instagram is for thots, Threads is where the "thots go to share their thoughts."
All jokes aside, it's an endless stream of takes from people who don't have an internal monologue. Plus some influencers trying their hand with unoriginal bait threads. Like the other poster said, it's worth checking out every now and again just to read some comments from folks who aren't thought leaders.
All jokes aside, it's an endless stream of takes from people who don't have an internal monologue. Plus some influencers trying their hand with unoriginal bait threads. Like the other poster said, it's worth checking out every now and again just to read some comments from folks who aren't thought leaders.
as a threads user since the beginning and a big fan of the platform, my answer is strongly "no."
which is my favorite reason to be there and i hope it doesn't change.
it's full of instagram and facebook users, which to use the common parlance, are all "normies." it's full of normal people have normal opinions in small spaces. there's very little viral posts or bits or memes that are carried outwards.
that being said dril started posting again there recently as have some other bigger ex weird twitter people so who knows.
which is my favorite reason to be there and i hope it doesn't change.
it's full of instagram and facebook users, which to use the common parlance, are all "normies." it's full of normal people have normal opinions in small spaces. there's very little viral posts or bits or memes that are carried outwards.
that being said dril started posting again there recently as have some other bigger ex weird twitter people so who knows.
I haven't seen the stats but suspect Threads may appear to have high growth because it's starting from such a low base.
Reading through the comments makes it seem like Bluesky is the Titantic and it's proponents are the orchestra on board.
Any news article that could be interpreted as critical of Musk these days seems to have a broad army of commenters that swarm to add low information critique of critique. This article is likely to be flagged off the front page very quickly too.
Edit: yes, and as predicted, this straightforward reporting on the scientific community's migration of social networks has been flagged off the front page, because too many HN folks can not distinguish bad news for Musk from biased against Musk. There's no reason for this to be flagged except for the political motivations od the flashers.
Edit: yes, and as predicted, this straightforward reporting on the scientific community's migration of social networks has been flagged off the front page, because too many HN folks can not distinguish bad news for Musk from biased against Musk. There's no reason for this to be flagged except for the political motivations od the flashers.
No kidding when the other site has filled up with people who only believes statements that any smart 5 year old would think is silly.
It is too bad things have got to this point, but we as voters let it happen. At least there are some countries that still value Science. The US seems to be doing all it can to hand what remains of our scientific lead to those countries.
It is too bad things have got to this point, but we as voters let it happen. At least there are some countries that still value Science. The US seems to be doing all it can to hand what remains of our scientific lead to those countries.
I want BlueSky to succeed but this sampling bias is simply too much to ignore.
This comment (by nunobrito) from few days ago on a similar topic is best analysis of this topic.
> These news are awfully similar to click-bait stating "the science is settled" by grouping a small set of the group and then pretending it represents the whole. The paper failed both to identify the overall number of scientists using X or the cases where multiple platforms are used (most common scenario). Therefore the paper only seems biased on its best scenario or downright propaganda at its worst. > NOSTR and Mastodon should never be left out of any serious research.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44982510