Read on Twitter
Ok - I'd like to start a discussion with an incendiary:
While #socialmedia can serve as a useful dissemination tool, for the most part it's use in #science & #scicomm is more like porn. It is performative and presents an unrealistic image of science & #scientists /short thread
While #socialmedia can serve as a useful dissemination tool, for the most part it's use in #science & #scicomm is more like porn. It is performative and presents an unrealistic image of science & #scientists /short thread
1) #socialmedia #scicomm tends to optimize for virality and shareability just like everything else on SM. That doesn't necessarily advance science, public understanding, or even public acceptance of the value of science. It paints a false image
2) #outreach and engagement teams push unreasonable expectations on practicing scientists
Twitter isn't enough. Do a @reddit AMA. Do @YouTube videos - 3 a week minimum. Be on @Twitch and @tiktok. Organize meetups on @joinClubhouse
When do we do science?
Twitter isn't enough. Do a @reddit AMA. Do @YouTube videos - 3 a week minimum. Be on @Twitch and @tiktok. Organize meetups on @joinClubhouse
When do we do science?
3) #Socialmedia rewards conventional images of beauty and sex. Sex sells, that isn't new. And we know images with faces/bodies do much better than technical images etc.
So guess who loses? Given the growing focus on equity and diversity, ignoring this seems harmful.
So guess who loses? Given the growing focus on equity and diversity, ignoring this seems harmful.
Some of us are unconventional in appearance and some of us (like me) are just not very attractive. #socialmedia in #scicomm reinforces many of the things that used to matter less in science - or at least thing we aspired to have matter less.
I admit I'm not sure right now how to improve things. But I definitely don't think the direction of #socialmedia #scicomm is going in the right direction now.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
