Is Twitter Dead? Where Science is Showing Up Online
For years, one of the most common pieces of advice we gave scientists and research organizations looking to strengthen their online presence was simple: get on Twitter.
When I founded Stellate Communications five years ago, Twitter was the conversational center of science online. It was where researchers shared new papers, reporters found sources, and where niche communities formed in real time. Entire ecosystems emerged — #ScienceTwitter, #AcademicTwitter, #BlackInNeuro, #WomenInSTEM — spanning both specific fields and personal identities
Today, the question we hear from clients is different: “Should we still be investing in Twitter/X?”
The answer is complicated.
The Twitter Heyday (2010–2022)
For over a decade, Twitter functioned as the de facto science “public square”. Several features made it uniquely powerful:
- Flat networks: researchers of all stages could directly interact with renowned senior scientists, journalists, and peers
- Fast information flow: preprints, papers, and conference highlights spread within minutes
- Media access: reporters regularly used Twitter to identify experts and gauge reactions to new research
As a communications professional operating in science spaces, it was invaluable. You could quickly see which reporters covered what, which papers were gaining traction, and where emerging conversations were forming. You could also leverage it to build a professional brand, recruit staff, and even help answer some of the most technical methodological questions.
It wasn’t just a social platform, it was truly part of the scientific infrastructure.
The Disruption (2022–2024)
It all changed in 2022 when Elon Musk acquired Twitter. Over the following months, verification systems were dismantled and replaced, content moderation policies shifted, platform stability declined, and folks started exploring alternative platforms.
During this period, two major grass-roots migration attempts were made:
- Mastodon (2022–2023): Early adopters in academia experimented with Mastodon’s decentralized network. While it gained some traction among researchers, the fragmented server structure made it difficult for mainstream communities to converge.
- Bluesky (2023–present): Bluesky has arguably come closest to recreating the feel of early Twitter. Many journalists and scientists now maintain active accounts there. Still, adoption remains uneven and the network effects are weaker than Twitter once had.
Meanwhile, Twitter rebranded to X in 2023 and shifted toward an “everything app”, and unsurprisingly… “everything” became fragmented.
What Happened to “Science Twitter”?
It dissolved. The once-centralized conversation has splintered across social platforms, with the primaries being:
- Bluesky
- Private Slack or Discord communities
- Substacks and other hybrid newsletter platforms
What we have today is not a replacement for Science Twitter — it's a patchwork of smaller networks.
The Surprise Winner: LinkedIn
Five years ago, I never would have predicted this, but LinkedIn is now the most important platform for science communication and professional brand building.
Several factors drove this shift:
- Some people were already on LinkedIn as a secondary or tertiary+ platform, so they were more comfortable there
- It has a more reliable and professional-grade user experience
- Universities and research institutes started investing more heavily in LinkedIn
- Algorithmic distribution rewards thought leadership-style posts
- It signals stronger institutional credibility compared to other platforms
LinkedIn is now where we see major research announcements gaining traction, labs sharing discoveries, scientists building visible professional brands, funders and policy organizations engaging publicly. However, LinkedIn still plays a different role than Twitter once did. It is more polished and increasingly long-form content driven.
What it is not is a true conversation hub. You rarely see someone ask, for example:“Who’s the best reporter covering this topic?” or “How long can an open container of salsa stay good in the fridge?”
Those small, human moments were part of what made Twitter powerful. They created serendipitous connections. That type of informal, community-driven exchange remains largely missing from today’s platforms.
Is Twitter (X) Still Relevant?
Yes, but only in specific ecosystems. Despite broader migration, several communities remain highly active on X, including:
- AI and machine learning
- neurotechnology
- crypto and Web3
- venture and startup ecosystems
- technology journalism
If your work intersects with these areas, X may still be a critical platform. For many academic science communities, however, engagement has clearly declined.
Our Recommendation
So, is Twitter dead? Not entirely, but it no longer has the gravitational pull it once did.
Our current guidance to scientists and research organizations is:
- Prioritize LinkedIn
- Maintain a presence on X if your field remains active there — but TBD for how much longer
Whether an existing platform evolves to meet that need (or a new one emerges) remains an open question. But science will continue to move forward regardless. Our job is to adapt with the landscape — helping shape those conversations and ensuring the right scientific voices are part of them.
