Scientists have just as much to gain as the public from being active on social media, but institutional and personal barriers still hinder their participation.
To be honest, the biggest problem I've found with social media is the amount of time it takes up to interact with it seriously. The nature of it can also make it hard to batch up social media time, instead you often have to repeatedly interact with it through the day. That doesn't match well with the kind of focused work you need in science.
Great point. Some services like Buffer exist, which allow you to schedule social media posts. But the very nature of social media does imply being "quick on one's toes" to react and engage with trends. I agree that is truly its own distinct challenge.
This is the first full long form content substack I have read in a year. Beautifully written and chronologically aligned.
My question is, how do we get the Bias in subscription based scientific social media space?
Is it my offering free content and focusing advertisements based platforms like YouTube or by getting more scientist involved in scientific communication via social media?
With regards to bias in subscription-based communication, I believe this is an audience-centric bias. The nature of subscription models compels communicators to write on what the audience is interested in. Thus, catering to the audience is a form of bias. It doesn't have to happen, it's just that the nature of how things are set up enables it to occur.
And I'm unfortunately not quite following your second question - but I can say that this newsletter is definitely focused on encouraging scientists to get more involved in science communication with social media. Posting content on YouTube, whether with or without advertisements, is definitely one wonderful, albeit time-consuming, way to do this.
To be honest, the biggest problem I've found with social media is the amount of time it takes up to interact with it seriously. The nature of it can also make it hard to batch up social media time, instead you often have to repeatedly interact with it through the day. That doesn't match well with the kind of focused work you need in science.
Great point. Some services like Buffer exist, which allow you to schedule social media posts. But the very nature of social media does imply being "quick on one's toes" to react and engage with trends. I agree that is truly its own distinct challenge.
This is the first full long form content substack I have read in a year. Beautifully written and chronologically aligned.
My question is, how do we get the Bias in subscription based scientific social media space?
Is it my offering free content and focusing advertisements based platforms like YouTube or by getting more scientist involved in scientific communication via social media?
Thanks for your feedback! :)
With regards to bias in subscription-based communication, I believe this is an audience-centric bias. The nature of subscription models compels communicators to write on what the audience is interested in. Thus, catering to the audience is a form of bias. It doesn't have to happen, it's just that the nature of how things are set up enables it to occur.
And I'm unfortunately not quite following your second question - but I can say that this newsletter is definitely focused on encouraging scientists to get more involved in science communication with social media. Posting content on YouTube, whether with or without advertisements, is definitely one wonderful, albeit time-consuming, way to do this.
I think I missed my wording but you answered by stating that YouTube is rather time consuming