The Exodus from X: Research Organizations Grapple with a Sinking Ship
For research communications professionals and academics, the current state of X (formerly Twitter) evokes a poignant image: a band steadfastly playing on as the Titanic slowly succumbs to the icy depths. Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform has ushered in a wave of changes, exacerbating pre-existing issues like rampant bot activity and a failure to curb trolls. The promised cleanup has failed to materialize, instead replaced by a resurgence of fake news and divisive accounts. This turbulent environment has sparked an exodus of users, leaving research organizations to ponder their continued presence on a platform seemingly in decline.
The decline of X as a hub for research discussion predates Musk’s takeover, with engagement peaking during the COVID-19 pandemic and steadily decreasing thereafter. The platform’s current algorithmic structure suppresses credible content, amplifies harmful trends, and diminishes the visibility and interaction of legitimate posts. While individual researchers have increasingly migrated to alternative platforms like Mastodon, Threads, and Bluesky, many research organizations remain on X, broadcasting to a dwindling audience. This raises the crucial question: why stay aboard a sinking ship?
The decision to remain or depart from X is a complex one, laden with ethical and strategic considerations. For individuals, the choice is often driven by personal values and tolerance for the platform’s increasingly toxic environment. For organizations, the calculus is more intricate. Years of effort invested in cultivating communities and establishing a presence on X cannot be easily discarded. Moreover, abandoning the platform could mean ceding ground to misinformation and losing a valuable channel for disseminating research findings. However, clinging to a platform that actively undermines credible content raises its own set of ethical dilemmas.
A survey of over 250 academic organizational accounts, including publishers, funders, learned societies, and research festivals, reveals a stark reality: the vast majority remain active on X. While some organizations have undoubtedly initiated internal discussions about exit strategies, concrete action has been slow. A handful of organizations, including Jisc and the Association for Learning Technology, have recently announced their departure from X, signaling a potential shift in the tide. This growing momentum may soon compel other organizations to confront the difficult decision of whether to abandon ship.
While the majority of surveyed organizations maintain a presence on X, a significant number have also established accounts on alternative platforms like Bluesky, Threads, Mastodon, and LinkedIn. However, a striking observation emerges: most of these alternative accounts remain dormant. While securing usernames and handles on these platforms is a prudent precautionary measure, the lack of activity suggests a reluctance to fully commit to a new digital home. This hesitancy is understandable; rebuilding online communities from scratch is a daunting task, particularly for organizations representing diverse voices and serving as knowledge hubs.
The current landscape of social media presents a challenging dilemma for research organizations. While X’s relevance for research and education continues to diminish, the prospect of building new online communities on alternative platforms seems equally daunting. However, the longer organizations delay this transition, the more difficult it will become. Tools like the Sky Follower Bridge, which helps identify existing connections on Bluesky, can facilitate the migration process. The creation of a shared spreadsheet documenting the social media presence of research organizations offers a valuable resource for tracking this evolving landscape.
Ultimately, the decision to abandon X hinges on a complex interplay of factors. While the optimistic hope for meaningful dialogue with platform ownership to address existing issues remains, the realistic outlook suggests that such efforts are unlikely to bear fruit. This sobering realization underscores the urgent need for research organizations to prepare their lifeboats and chart a course towards alternative platforms before X sinks further into the abyss. The future of online research communication depends on proactive adaptation and a willingness to embrace new digital horizons.