For over a decade, X (formerly Twitter) served as the digital town square for scientists, a place to share research, debate findings, and network with peers. But a significant shift is underway. A growing number of researchers are abandoning X in favor of Bluesky, a newer social media platform, citing concerns over misinformation, harassment, and a perceived decline in professional value. New data confirms this migration, revealing that Bluesky is rapidly becoming the platform of choice for the science community.
The changes at X began after its acquisition by Elon Musk in late 2022. Subsequent alterations to content moderation policies and the platform’s algorithms sparked widespread concern among academics. Reports of increased misinformation, conspiracy theories, and targeted harassment – particularly against minority groups – created an environment many researchers found increasingly unwelcoming and unproductive. As X’s character evolved, so too did the willingness of scientists to remain active on the platform.
A recent study published in Integrative and Comparative Biology, surveying over 800 researchers and science communicators, provides compelling evidence of this exodus. The findings overwhelmingly indicate that scientists no longer find X professionally useful or pleasant, and are actively migrating to Bluesky. The study highlights that for every professional benefit previously derived from X, scientists are now experiencing greater effectiveness on Bluesky.
Bluesky, launched as a decentralized social network, has positioned itself as an alternative to traditional platforms. While other options like Threads and Mastodon have also emerged, Bluesky appears to be resonating most strongly with the scientific community. Data from August 2025 shows a significant increase in science-related posts on Bluesky, doubling the number compared to July and tripling the volume from March, though the platform itself remains somewhat reserved about releasing precise user statistics.
But the shift isn’t simply about escaping a perceived negative environment. Analysis of 2.6 million Bluesky posts referencing over 500,000 scholarly articles reveals a key factor: engagement. Research shared on Bluesky receives “substantially higher levels of interaction” – including likes, reposts, replies, and quotes – than comparable posts on X. The analysis indicates greater “textual originality” in Bluesky discussions, suggesting a more thoughtful and nuanced exchange of ideas.
A study from Sheffield University found that almost half of all scientific posts on Bluesky receive at least 10 likes, and a third are reposted 10 or more times. This level of engagement suggests that the platform fosters a more active and responsive community, encouraging deeper discussion and wider dissemination of research.
The increased engagement on Bluesky isn’t accidental. The platform’s design and features appear to be conducive to meaningful scientific discourse. Unlike X’s algorithm-driven feed, which can prioritize sensationalism and virality, Bluesky’s chronological feed and emphasis on community moderation may contribute to a more focused and productive environment. The platform’s focus on allowing users to control their algorithmic experience also plays a role.
The transition isn’t without its challenges. Bluesky is still a relatively new platform, and its user base, while growing rapidly, is smaller than that of X. Concerns about scalability and long-term sustainability have been raised. However, the momentum appears to be firmly on Bluesky’s side, particularly within the scientific community.
The implications of this shift extend beyond individual researchers. The movement to Bluesky could reshape how scientific knowledge is disseminated, debated, and advanced. A platform that prioritizes accuracy, thoughtful discussion, and constructive engagement could foster a more robust and reliable scientific ecosystem. The decline of X as a central hub for scientific communication underscores the importance of finding platforms that actively support and value the principles of open inquiry and evidence-based reasoning.
As one researcher noted in a LinkedIn post, “Survey results overwhelmingly confirm that changes to Twitter have made the social media platform no longer professionally useful or pleasant, and that many scientists have abandoned it in favor of Bluesky.” This sentiment is echoed throughout the scientific community, signaling a clear preference for a platform that prioritizes professional engagement and intellectual discourse.
