I’m finding myself more and more bothered by the value incongruence of accounts associated with scientific integrity and science reform movements (personal or organisational) remaining active on the platform holding a vote to bring back Alex Jones.
if it’s important to maintain an account as a matter of historic record, occasionally ‘liking’ some tweet about the weather should be enough.
@UlrikeHahn You do not see it as a consequence of diversity of values in science? I do. The groups of people who ended up not moving and that I want to continue to interact with have different values than you have.
@lakens I don’t really like moralising social media posts, don’t think it’s for me to tell people what to do (so tried to choose the phrasing carefully), and see parts of science/sci comm where makes sense for people to still have a presence on X (Covid discourse). But I actually don’t understand why, OSF is still active on X. I don’t think the people it’s trying to reach are there any more (or can’t be reached elsewhere) and it seems a bad fit (so a reputational cost with little gain).
@UlrikeHahn I think the extent to which people are upset about Musk and Alex Jones differs. I do not really know who Alex Jones is, and I think there are a lot of problematic people on every platform I am on (even this one). So I guess I just accept it, block bad people, and stay on a platform if it benefits my science. Which Twitter (to my regret, I was pushing hard to move people here) still does.
For me, it came down to an ethical decision about moderation. Insofar as I am encouraging my community to engage in discussions, it needs to happen in a space that is safe for all; no one should have to suffer to be a part of the conversation. The instance that I am on here has those moderation policies (even if other instances do not) and so it qualifies. Twitter did once too; a year or so ago I watched them degrade (and that is why I stopped participating there).
I'm still watching to see how it all shakes out on Bluesky.
To be clear, I'm not judging anyone. You do you! Just explaining how I think about it myself.
@NicoleCRust@lakens I think you put that well, Nicole, and it helps me better understand what motivated me to post what I did (which I went to and fro on whether or not I should). I really wasn’t trying to have a general moral blast at people remaining on Twitter. Rather it was about my confusion (and a bit of disappointment?) that there are advocates for idealistic futures for science that don’t seem to see what I see with respect to the reputational cost vis a vis that idealism
@UlrikeHahn@NicoleCRust I understand, and I saw a lot of them try. I am speculating but I think a lot of people advocating better science have had to be incredibly pragmatic. The better way of doing science is so far away, you literally have to work in a bad system every day. If anything, doesn't academia train us to stay in a bad system 😅
@lakens@NicoleCRust It absolutely does …and I think your pragmatism point is an important one. I think intuitively it had the opposite effect for me here: social media is an optional add on, and switching platforms such low hanging fruit that it makes me think ‘and you can’t/won’t even drop that?’ so it then starts to challenge authenticity… and I really don’t want that to happen.
@UlrikeHahn Sorry to piggyback this discussion, for me it comes down to having a social networking platform that resembles Twitter, allows scientific interactions and a bit of social hygiene (moderation). It simply is the case that I find it all here with minimal effort to adapt. Right now I'm happy with the apps and how civilised this environment is.
@lf_araujo@UlrikeHahn For me that is regrettably not remotely true. I keep posting here but Twitter still is the source of 95% of the useful information I receive. Bluesky is 5%. Mastodon regrettably gives nothing (beyond some casual chat with nice people like yourself!). But papers, citations, discussions with people smarter than me - still Twitter :(
@lakens@lf_araujo I don’t have the comparison (don’t use Twitter or Bluesky, just look at them as research objects), but I have definitely had extremely valuable exchanges here. None of them were in (core) psychology though. That suggests to me community fragmentation is the issue?
@lakens@lf_araujo thinking a bit more about your vs. my own experience, Daniel. I think it might reflect a bigger picture on who this platform is currently working for and who not. I had no strong expectations, have really diverse research interests that themselves are very interdisciplinary, so just bounce around looking for interesting stuff. That actually surfaces more than I can fully process. For those trying to recreate a successful past environment on Twitter it seems to work less well.
@UlrikeHahn@lakens@lf_araujo Hi. Like Daniel, I get a lot less psych science content here than I did on Twitter, and vastly less response to posts. Maybe lack of skill/effort on my part. But I also get much less bs, advertising, nastiness, etc. And I'm late career, And I would not want to contribute to Musk.
@lakens Daniel, one more question on your comment “I think there are a lot of problematic people on every platform I am on (even this one)”. Do you think there is a difference between problematic people being on a platform and the owner of a platform promoting problematic people?
Musk held a Spaces with Jones and Alex Tate today, after which Jones’ newly instated account went from 800k to 1,3m followers, it seems.
@UlrikeHahn There is a difference, but not that much. I do not like to see it. But then, being a person many other people think is problematic, I also do not think it is so easy to decide what to allow and what not. The law is my favorite guide here. I would be all up for thinking what good laws should be here. I doubt banning bad actors works, or is even a good idea, as much as I would sometimes like it.
Add comment