The Migration of the Scientific Community from Twitter to Bluesky: A Comprehensive Analysis
I. Introduction
Marine biologist and conservationist David Shiffman was an early and influential advocate for science engagement on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Over time, he trained more than 2,000 early - career scientists in leveraging the platform for professional networking, sharing scientific papers, and communicating with the public. However, the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk in 2022, along with subsequent changes to its algorithm and moderation policy, led Shiffman to seek alternative platforms.
II. The Search for Alternatives
With the emergence of new platforms such as Threads, Post, Mastodon, and Bluesky, Shiffman, among the first wave of scientists, joined Bluesky. He found that, despite its nascent stage, Bluesky possessed many features reminiscent of the “golden age” of Twitter. Shiffman noticed that he was not alone in the scientific community facing issues with Twitter. News stories in esteemed outlets like Nature, Science, and The Chronicle of Higher Education further confirmed growing complaints about Twitter and an increasing migration of science professionals to Bluesky.
III. The Scientific Survey
A. Motivation and Collaboration
Curious about the extent of this migration, Shiffman decided to conduct a scientific survey. He collaborated with social scientist Julia Wester, who, like many others, had joined Twitter at Shiffman's encouragement but later became disenchanted and moved to Bluesky. Wester was intrigued by the opportunity to move beyond anecdotal evidence and identify real patterns in the migration phenomenon.
B. Survey Design
The survey targeted scientists, science communicators, and science educators who had used both Twitter and Bluesky. It explored various aspects such as user attitudes, experiences, joining times, follower and post counts, professional tasks, platform usefulness relative to 2021, and how they first heard about Bluesky.
C. Sample Considerations
The authors recognized the specific demographic focus of the survey and the inevitable self - selection effect. However, they argued that the sample and method were appropriate for studying the migration phenomenon, as they aimed to understand why people decided to stay or move between platforms.
D. Survey Results
- Sample Size and Twitter Usage
The final sample size was 813 people. Over 90% of respondents had used Twitter for learning about new field developments, 85.5% for professional networking, and 77.3% for public outreach. Since Musk's takeover, roughly three - quarters of respondents reported a significant decrease in Twitter's usefulness for these professional purposes. Nearly half still had Twitter accounts but used them less frequently or not at all, while about 40% had deleted their accounts in favor of Bluesky.
- User Complaints about Twitter
Complaints about Twitter included an increase in spam, porn, bots, and promoted posts from verified users spreading extremist content. There were also concerns about misinformation, a decline in engagement quantity and quality, with users describing their experiences as “unpleasant,” “negative,” or “hostile.”
- The Push/Pull Dynamic towards Bluesky
The survey revealed a clear push - pull dynamic. People felt pushed away from Twitter and actively sought alternatives. Bluesky was seen as user - friendly, with no algorithm, a familiar format, and helpful tools like recommended follower lists for specific fields. Users also appreciated Bluesky's moderation and the ability to block or mute aggressive users. An “overwhelming majority” of respondents considered Bluesky to have a “vibrant and healthy online science community,” while Twitter no longer did. Bluesky users often reported higher engagement despite potentially lower follower counts.
- Referral Traffic Comparison
Shiffman noted that Twitter, once in the top three for referral traffic for posts on Southern Fried Science, dropped significantly after Musk's takeover, while Bluesky has driven “a hundred times as many page views” to the blog in 2025. Ars Technica also reported a dip in Twitter referral traffic in 2025, with Bluesky traffic starting to surpass Twitter traffic over the summer.
IV. Bluesky in the Academic Sphere and the “Bubble” Debate
A. Academic Sharing on Bluesky
Shiffman pulled Altmetrics stats for his and Wester's new paper, showing that it had far more shares on Bluesky (over a thousand) compared to Twitter/X (14). This indicated a more active academic scholarly conversation on Bluesky.
B. The “Bubble” Argument
Despite some legacy media accusing Bluesky of being in a liberal bubble, Shiffman was unconcerned. He argued that he used social media for scientific communication, not political arguments. He also pointed out that Twitter was not a representative sample of the public either, and for his work in ocean conservation, he found a more engaged audience on Bluesky.
V. Future Considerations and Limitations
A. Unaddressed Demographics
Shiffman lamented that certain groups, like the powerful Black Science Twitter contingent, had not switched to Bluesky in significant numbers. He planned a follow - up study to explore the usage of Twitter, departure from social media, and Bluesky's demographic diversity.
B. Survey Limitations
The survey had limitations due to the dynamic nature of the social media landscape. Wester acknowledged that conducting the study at different times might yield different results, but it still provided insights into what makes a healthy online conversation and how scientists were pivoting in public science communication.
VI. Optimism for the Future of Social Media
Both Shiffman and Wester, while recognizing the toxic dynamics in social media such as filter bubbles and extreme - view amplification, were less pessimistic about its future. Shiffman attributed the problems to human behavior rather than the nature of social media itself. Wester pointed out that social media spaces are evolving, and rules can be created to shape these spaces, as demonstrated by the differences in moderation policies and algorithm usage between Twitter and Bluesky.
This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.