You send us your thorniest research communications questions and we answer them.

Dear PRB,

Social media used to be a fun way to stay informed about the latest research, but lately it feels kind of hostile to science. And it feels like my colleagues and friends are all leaving. Should I stay on X (formerly Twitter) and Meta to help fill the information gaps? Should I move to a more science-friendly platform? Should I quit entirely and go back to sending handwritten letters?

Signed,

Lonely Researcher

_______________

Dear Lonely Researcher,

We believe it is incumbent upon researchers to share their knowledge with the world.

So, on the question of “Should I quit entirely?” we are a solid no.

Your research should be known by the public. And since most of the public won’t ever read a journal article, we each need to find other ways to communicate. Unless you’re planning to write op-eds on a regular basis (and place them in outlets with no paywall), social media remains the most efficient, open way to share research and expertise with the world.

But on the question of where to engage? That requires a bit more nuance.

I’ve heard some convincing arguments for continuing to post fact-based information on hostile platforms. (If all scientists leave, only rumor and conspiracy remain.) While I applaud the goal of trying to fill an information vacuum, I’m increasingly skeptical that strategy works on all platforms.

In addition to concerns about scientific and ethnical integrity, there’s mounting evidence that important content is being downranked or censored on some platforms. In January 2025 content related to medication abortion was censored on two popular platforms. While much was later restored, it’s unclear why the content was censored, and some of the information is still missing. While this example is specific to one company, academics on other major social media sites have reported similar issues of difficulty being heard amidst the noise.

Continuing to share scientifically accurate information remains critically important. But it feels a bit like a koan: if it’s posted and no one sees it, is it actually shared?

So, our best advice right now? Diversity.

Many researchers and scholars are finding their communities on BlueSky. Others may find their niche on LinkedIn. Some may still be finding traction on legacy platforms. But sharing across multiple platforms—even simply by cross-posting the same content—seems wise right now.

This article was written by Beth Jarosz, Senior Program Director in U.S. Programs at PRB.