Bluesky: Why scientists are flocking to this new social network

© Ousa Chea/Unsplash

In the academic sphere, a groundswell is currently breaking and the scientific community is beginning a radical change in the way it communicates online. This groundswell is Bluesky. In 2019, the latter was simply a project initiated by Jack Dorsey, then CEO of Twitter. Its goal was clear: to develop an open and decentralized protocol for social networks.

Today, it is experiencing absolutely meteoric growth. Following the results of the presidential election that put Donald Trump back in power in the USA, Bluesky grew from 14 to 21 million users in just two weeks. A real explosion of popularity; which however has its downside; also marking a massive migration of the scientific community, in search of a more serene space for exchange than its predecessor X. Since the acquisition by Elon Musk, the platform has been faltering and showing significant signs of decline.

A haven of academic peace

Bluesky's appeal lies in its ability to recreate the atmosphere of Twitter's early days, where more than 500,000 researchers shared their discoveries in 2022. The platform seduces with its stricter approach to moderation and its robust protection mechanisms. Conversely, X, Twitter's fallen heir, has recently fallen into a vicious spiral of questionable content and bots, driven by failing moderation.

Bluesky deploys an arsenal of features that allow users and researchers to customize their digital environment as they wish. Very effective filtering tools are available, including the ” nuclear block “, which eliminates any interaction with accounts deemed undesirable.

A perfectly optimized ” feeds ” system is also part of it: these are thematic feeds that ensure targeted dissemination of scientific content. For example, the ” Science feed ,” run by a user named Bossett, already attracts 14,000 subscribers and generates 400,000 daily views, bringing together ecologists, zoologists, and quantum physicists.

A self-regulated republic of knowledge

Bluesky's originality also lies in its intellectual governance. Access to the circle of scientific contributors is obtained through a rigorous validation process of academic credentials, i.e. the set of qualifications and academic titles that attest to a person's competence in a given field. Mae Saslaw, a geoscientist at Stony Brook, has seen a six-fold increase in applications to the geoscience feed in just one week.

An innovative system, “ starter packs” are available on the network; they serve as personalized welcome guides for newcomers in the form of topic-specific subscription lists.

Among these initiatives, the ” Blackademics U.K. ” pack created by neuroscientist Clíona Murray highlights the work of Black British academics. In a similar vein, developer Rudy Fraser has designed “Blacksky”, a collection of news feeds with moderation tools that allow users to automatically flag and filter racist or misogynistic content, with a particular focus on attacks targeting Black women in academia. Compared to X, it's two rooms, two atmospheres.

The mutations of an expanding ecosystem

Faced with this exodus, some researchers adopt a nuanced position. Professor Axel Bruns of the University of Queensland has chosen to keep his account on X, fearing that abandoning it would open the door to identity thieves. A concern shared by Madhukar Pai of McGill University who, despite losing over a thousand subscribers, remains loyal to the platform. “If experts leave X, who will bring reliable scientific information to the platform ? ” he wonders.

The massive crowds at this new agora still raise questions about its sustainability. Bethan Davies, a glaciologist in Newcastle, senses the infiltration of malicious algorithms and actors with dubious intentions. «There is clearly a risk that malicious individuals and bots will invade the platform,” he explains.