Editorial: Enjoy your echo chamber

Bluesky, the microblogging platform, is in ascendency. It started as an initiative of Twitter (as X was known at the time) in 2019, a geological age ago in social media time.

But since Bluesky opened to public registration in February 2024, it has proved something of a rival to X. In November, Bluesky added about 1 million new users per day—many of them exiles from X. The platform has been featured in a slew of mainstream media as both content and delivery platform, and publications like the Guardian announced that Bluesky would be their social media of choice. It has even given rise to #chemsky, a hashtag for chemists and the chemistry curious.

When Bluesky established itself as an independent company in October 2021, CEO Jay Graber cited incompatible incentives with its onetime parent. This rationale gets to the heart of Bluesky’s appeal for many, including scientists: vibes.

Since Elon Musk acquired X in 2022, it has increasingly been associated with his controversial brand. Recently, the Science and Technology group in the UK House of Commons summoned Musk to testify about misinformation on X. Musk retaliated with typical bluster, issuing his own counter-summons. It is no accident that the exodus from X gained momentum after Donald Trump’s victory in the US election. Musk has been a key ally of the president-elect and, for some, leaving the platform is akin to a protest vote.

The last several months have also brought a series of policy announcements on X that have fueled user concerns about privacy, misinformation, and copyright infringement. Typically, these policies were introduced with a view to monetizing engagement.

There is something to be said for vibes in a place where people go to find community. The Economist Impact team conducted a survey of more than 3,000 scientists in 2022, and over a third said they themselves or someone they knew had been harassed for their work. X is notorious for its lack of civility and the proliferation of “trolls”—social media speak for bullies.

Bluesky’s users can customize their experience. For example, being able to decide if your posts may be quoted by others on the platform can make a huge difference in containing bullying behavior. It would be nice to share a story on messenger RNA vaccines and not find your post the center of a pile-on by conspiracy theorists.

But there have been many social media dreams over the years. Heard of Mastodon? Or Post? And if Bluesky should endure, how do we know that with time and enough users the uncivil behavior that plagues X will not surface again? Especially if part of the reason we take to social media is to make science accessible.

This points to some unfashionable conclusions.

We in science should probably give up on trying to speak to everyone, everywhere on social media. You don’t design a dinner party to ensure broad debate. You might want the party to be thought-provoking, but it’s more important that it’s pleasant. Is it so bad to approach our social media with the same expectation?

Many would argue that this approach leads to echo chambers. Then so be it.

Even successful science influencers like Chemical Kim are educating those with some level of investment or curiosity.

Anyway, there’s some evidence that when people are seeking information, echo chambers are more permeable than we might expect. This is partly because people read more than they share but also because their positions on issues of science can vary from one topic to another according to a range of personal calculations.

Echo chambers are also part of how science works. Epistemic communities build a corpus of knowledge through provocation and managed skepticism. And a shared comradery. Platforms like Bluesky allow you to extend your lab community internationally in real time, without the formal strictures of other academic communication. That is worth supporting.

The world is a polarized place. So, enjoy your echo chamber. And join us on Bluesky @cenmag.bsky.social.

This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this week’s editorial, the lead contributor is Nick Ishmael-Perkins.

Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of ACS.