One of the reasons why I think it's important for as many scientists as possible to be on one social network is that I actually got to read a surprising amount of new/cool/impactful studies/opinions/ideas through their sharing by others.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I guess this also holds for many others. I would be very interested to know what the overall effect is on science and the advancement of science, and how much a fragmentation of this effect diminishes us.
I even think there could be a case for a more active approach to get as much scientists on one platform: A broad discussion among science leaders/journals/funders (where? Conferences?) on which social network is best to choose? Obviously I am banking on Bluesky being that.
I would not be against the big funders (NIH/ERC/Wellcome, etc) setting up a new science social network dedicated to the global discussion and sharing of science (papers, ideas, etc).
Yes! IMO https://biologists.social works really well for discussing all aspects of biology, academia, & some non-science chat too. I agree with Alex that there is still scope for other orgs, funders etc to set up similar things, perhaps venturing beyond biology- they could all link into one modular forum 😀
Great initiative, I have also looked into Mastodon, and am present on various instances, I will join https://Biologists.social as well. Company of Biologists isn't on Bluesky though right? Many other science journals aren't either. What is your view on Bluesky vs Mastodon?
No they’re not on Bluesky. I prefer Mastodon. TBH I’m concerned that Bluesky will go the same way as Twitter (buyout/enshittification) but right now, with such an influx of scientists, I’m happy to see where this takes us.
Comments