Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Communicable takes on hot topics in infectious diseases and clinical microbiology. Hosted by the editors of CMI Communications, the open-access journal of ESCMID, the European Society of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
[00:00:00]
Angela: hello and welcome back to Communicable, the podcast brought to you by CMI Communications, ESCMID's open Access Journal, covering infectious diseases and clinical microbiology. My name is Angela Huttner. I'm an infectious disease doctor at the Geneva University Hospital in Switzerland, an editor-in-chief of CMI Comms.
I'm joined by my co-host, mark Bonten who is now Vice Dean of Education at the University of Utrecht and director of the Education Center of the University Medical Center, Utrecht in the Netherlands, and associate editor at CMI Comms. Congratulations, mark and welcome back here at the platform.
Marc: Thank you.
Great to be here.
Angela: Yeah, I missed you. So today we're bringing to communicable a debate that has already been running in the pages of CMI communications and that debate is whether we as infectious diseases specialists and clinical microbiologists [00:01:00] and science communicators, which we must be, should stay on the social media platform Formerly known and beloved by many as Twitter, now known and reviled by many as X. A few months ago, we invited two well-known infectious disease influencers to write up their arguments for staying on X in the case of one and leaving x. In the case of the other,
you will find a link to their pro con piece in the show notes. So I'm delighted to introduce Dr. Neil Stone, who argued for staying on x. Neil is a consultant in infectious diseases, medicine and microbiology at the University College, hospital and Hospital for tropical diseases in London, United Kingdom.
He specializes in invasive fungal diseases in the immunosuppressed and his impressive research output to match. . But for today's purposes, we'll be focusing on his role as an ID influencer and science communicator In Twitter's heyday, Neil had 40,000 followers playing an important role in educating the lay public on the COVID [00:02:00] Pandemic and other infectious disease issues.
Angela: He remains on X where he currently has 120,000 followers. Neil, welcome to
Communicable.
Thank you very much. Great to be here,
Marc: And I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Ilan Schwartz, who argued for leaving. X. Ilan is an associate professor of medicine and clinical ID physician at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, USA.
He also specializes in fungal diseases and his research work on emerging fungal infections in in immunocompromised host is also formidable, but for today's purposes, he'll highlight his work as germ hunter, the erstwhile Twitter, and now Blue Sky Influencer. At Twitter, Ilan had 40,000 followers and was also instrumental in science communication to non-experts.
Ilan, welcome to Communicable.
Ilan: Thank you so much for having me.
Angela: And finally, I'm pleased to introduce our third guest, Tara Smith. Tara is a professor of epidemiology at Kent State University College of Public Health in [00:03:00] Ohio, USA, she studies zoonotic infections and was the first to identify strains of MRSA associated with livestock in the us.
But again, she is here today primarily as a formidable science communicator. During the pandemic, she wrote a regular column for Self Magazine, and in Twitter's heyday, she had more than 130,000 followers. Tara was not a coauthor on the ProCon piece written by Neil and Ilan, but she had something to say about it. She wrote a letter to the editor after the piece was published, making what we thought were some really important points.
So with the full support and impressive grace of Neil and Ilan, we asked Tara to be part of the discussion today. Tara, welcome to Communicable.
Tara: Thank you for having me on.
Marc: Good. Our listeners will know we start these episodes with a get to know you question . The question this time is, what is a regret you have with regard to your own , social media communication, a misstep you made that you wish you hadn't?
Neil, will you like to [00:04:00] start?
Neil: Thanks. What a tough question to open with. I'm gonna just also start by saying, I'm not trained in comms at all. Not had any social media training, no media training at all. I'm all self-taught.
I just did this as a hobby and for fun. So I think making missteps is inevitable. Someone once asked me, you know, what's your social media comm strategy? And I was like. Strategy. I just say what I think. but it has got me into a little bit of trouble. There was one I particularly regret, which was at the height of the COVID Pandemic when this all really kicked off.
was a really tragic story of, a man in the UK who was a big anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist, told people not to get the vaccine because of all kinds of weird and absurd conspiracy theories. And tragically he died from COVID. Now it was a horrible story and, I made a comment about this, trying to get the message across about how dangerous conspiracy theories are.
Anyway, it didn't come across right and, probably came across as insensitive to, his poor family. and actually friends of mine, who I value their opinion, strongly texted me and said, it doesn't work. I would [00:05:00] delete it. So I did. So that was a good example of, , taking advice from people.
So that was definitely a misstep, and I regret that. There was another occasion actually where I did take something down. I actually regret removing something because. Occasionally dip my toe into politics, which is a very dangerous game 'cause I, I'm primarily not doing this to promote my political agendas.
But medicine and politics and science are completely intertwined as we all know. I put out a personal opinion and I got a lot of negative feedback from people who didn't agree with my stance. So I took it down and actually regret it because with hindsight I stand by what I said and I felt a little bit pressurized into doing that 'cause I didn't conform to my expected political standpoint.
So I kind of regret taking that down. So, two occasions there. Where I've, it's not gone quite the way I wanted it to go.
Angela: Thanks for sharing both of them. I find it interesting that you can have regrets either way. Ilan, what about you?
Ilan: I regret that I, criticized Neil for his political takes.
I think I was one of the [00:06:00] many that, gave him some negative feedback about, his foray into, US politics in, the lead up to the, presidential, election of, 2024. as Neil says, you know, none of us are, trained in science communication. I think maybe, possibly Tara might correct me about that 'cause she does it so well.
that I think, she might, come by it naturally and, through some training. But, I think what Neil says about writing things that. are sometimes interpreted in a way that is different than how they're intended. sometimes you don't expect to have the sort of exposure with some of your, posts, and you would say something different if it was a room full of your, friends and, confidants.
but of course when you put something out to the internet, it gets blasted to the larger community, especially if there's something that's even a hint of, controversy associated with it, in which case, people will quickly interpret it in bad faith and, amplify it. I certainly do regret some of the things that I had [00:07:00] tweeted that, were interpreted, as being insensitive by colleagues.
I don't have quite as poignant an example as. discussing somebody who had passed away, but certainly, sometimes I would say something flippantly, without, full consideration of the, consequences. Now, one of the, instances did come back to bite me in that, there was a physician in Canada who was promoting views that were, I think you could say, antithetical to the signs at the time, arguing that vaccines weren't needed, for example, this was before vaccines were available.
And, I was one of, many people who, pushed back against this and I don't think in a way that was, unfair or particularly unkind, in the context of, social media discourse. And, soon after I was, served with, legal papers that there was a suit being filed against me and, 22 other, physicians and communicators, including journalists, as this individual, had been [00:08:00] getting advice that they needed to, vehemently defend their, position.
And, I think some ill guidance To do so in court. And so this was a, long, drawn out drama that lasted about, 18 months from beginning to end, which mercifully was actually, abbreviated, compared to, what would've been the case if the particular province in Canada didn't have anti SLAP laws.
SLAP is strategic lawsuit against public participation. And so because these antis slap laws existed in Ontario, it was, possible for the lawyers that were provided to me through my university to argue that, this individual was trying to chill a fair discussion in a public forum. and as a result, the, lawsuit was tossed out, in an expedient manner, which again, was 18 months as opposed to, maybe four or five years.
Uh, so ultimately. we were victorious in this, suit, but, many of my colleagues who didn't have universities backing them were, on the hook for, quite a lot of money in that instance. And so I think that's [00:09:00] just a reminder that what happens on social media does actually, have potential to come back and bite you in the real world.
whether or not what you say is, fair, there still can be consequences, that you may not be, shielded from. So I think those are some of my regrets.
Marc: Well, that's, quite a story. I'll be a good title of this episode, "the sequela of a tweet" so, Tara, you as a third guest, what is your sweet regret?
Yeah, so mine dates back. So I've been on social media since forever, since about 2004 starting on blogs and really that's where I cut my teeth.
what I would have done different at that time is this was again in, the days where you had all these, people commenting. And this is before we had honestly a lot of good moderation tools. I couldn't even ban anyone back in the day, but my blog became kind of a haven, unfortunately.
Tara: HIV Denialist because it was something that I discussed a lot and it was good for me because I learned all of their arguments and learned how to counter those. But looking at, papers published since in psychology [00:10:00] journals and, things like that, even, these brief exposure to some of these anti-science ideas can actually sway people's views on this.
And like, mine was literally infested. It's kinda like the Nazi bar analogy, right? You, get one person and then they bring their friends and it was really kind of ended up being this haven for HIV Denialist to come comment on my blog. That really, I don't know that I would've necessarily changed it, but, you know, I learned from it and, now I take a much more heavy hand at moderation.
you know, I was very open to the idea of, these arguments would be, kind of shot down by science and people would believe the science instead of the denialist arguments. And that just, I don't have any formal training in this, but I have learned along the way, a lot of the things that I thought I naively thought very early in my career just are not.
True as, as far as the psychology of, science acceptance and things like that. So, I don't know that I necessarily would have changed it, but it definitely has impacted the [00:11:00] way that I do things now and I really just don't let a lot of that stand any longer. for people that I can tell are just there to troll, just there to, try to get their, views seen and not really to have a good discussion.
I don't allow that any longer.
Angela: Wow. Interesting. for you the regret was actually trying to have a real dialogue and so sad
Tara: I think it helped, but again, I have learned to write and to speak for the fence sitters, right?
For people who are not convinced one way or another, and these people that were in the early days of, science communication, really online, they were not fence, they were very convinced they were the leaders in this movement. Nothing I was gonna do was ever gonna change any of their minds.
And unfortunately, I, worry that it swayed some others who were looking at the conversation and, may have believed HIV didn't exist, or HIV was not an issue or something like that. All the things that they were arguing.
Angela: Yeah. So it actually might've created [00:12:00] openings for Denialists, Instead of a space for real dialogue.
So thank you to you three. very humbling and very, scary answers in some cases. And now that we know a little bit more about you guys, let's dive in. First of all, full disclosure, I, myself was on Twitter for only a few years, around 2018, but I never actually used it.
Angela: And then I closed my account when the site was bought by Elon Musk. Our journal opened an account there shortly after the journal launched in spring of 2024. And we did post regularly at ID Twitter until last summer, 2024, when Musk's posts became increasingly political and in my eyes, ultimately misogynistic.
So we stopped posting and moved to Blue Sky and our baby journal, thus has the distinction of being the very first medical journal on Blue Sky. So all this is to say I am not entirely a neutral host, and yet I read Neil's section of the debate and I thought it was effective. So I do believe I have become [00:13:00] more neutral since.
. Mark, do you have any disclosures before we begin this, talk?
Marc: Well, yes. I started on, Twitter, I think somewhere in 2016, and then became more and more active and then the pandemic started Twitter was my lifeline because it provided so much real time information, was so helpful.
And I went with the flow, but then after two or three years, found myself flowing in a sewage of, yes, we all know what. And then I, actually I never left Twitter, but I've become kind of a Twitter and X voyeur, so I look what other posts, but I hardly react to that anymore. I joined Blue Sky. But I must say that I don't really get into the flow.
I don't think there's much activity there. And I'm currently most active on LinkedIn. And to be honest, that's mostly in Dutch and my topics. There are medical misinformation. I respond to professional organizations who almost on a daily basis, post [00:14:00] misinformation content there. And then I try to respond with content, and I think it's, more therapeutic than that.
I think that I will change the world. But I feel good with it. Angela, back to you.
Angela: I didn't know you were on LinkedIn in Dutch. I'll have to check that out. So, Neil, can you give us a rundown of that section that you wrote, which I thought was very powerful? What are your arguments for staying at X?
Neil: Okay, so, I'm not gonna go through the, entire article 'cause obviously it's published for everyone to read. I guess I'll pick out the main themes I think of my argument and I guess before I go on, I should say, this is purely my personal recommendations, my personal stance on it.
You don't have to be on social media at all. everyone can choose what they want to be on. So, you know, if you're having a bad experience or, things are threatening. Leave, Absolutely. But you know, I was asked specifically to think about what are the reasons to stay?
I think this is quite a tough, argument to make. We called it the Exodus. So I'm definitely arguing against the consensus from a medical and [00:15:00] scientific point of view, but I'm gonna try anyway I have stayed on.
Neil: So I guess I need to justify myself in some way. And I think the first point really is about conceding space to extremists. I think we'll all agree. I'm not going to deny the fact that since Elon Musk took over, there's definitely being a rise of, the most hateful, extreme content where everything to do from anti-vaccine, anti scientist, bigotry, hatred, anti-Semitism, everything you can think of, which is essentially abhorrent.
It's shoved in your face. that's clearly true from a medical and scientific viewpoint. However, I think it's quite important that there is someone there to push back against that. So when you see just blatant untruths lies, it's called disinformation. Now that's a new word for lies.
people either know they're doing on purpose or they're spreading it because they believe it. I think there needs to be someone there to challenge it. Someone who's in a position of, I guess, authority or an experience with a scientific background and knowledge to [00:16:00] say, no, that is just not true.
The reality is A, B, and C. the more you concede space to extremists, things become fact. the more often you repeat a lie, the more believable it becomes. The saying goes, that is very much true in social media. So if you spend some time on X, now the consensus it seems is, we know the COVID vaccines didn't work.
We know COVID was a hoax, but these are accepted facts now, and you have to say, no, that's not true, and here are the reasons why it's not true in present that. So I think it's important to push back against it and it's becoming ever harder because the more and more sane and rational voices who leave there are fewer of us left behind.
To counter it, I think it's important to push back and I get feedback from people who, thank me individually and say, thank you for explaining that. I was taken in by all of this stuff, but thank you for explaining why that's simply not true. So I think that's one key point, countering extremism and not conceding the space to the most extreme and hateful and just flatly wrong information out there.
So that's [00:17:00] one. The second thing is trying to avoid being in an echo chamber. So human beings, we all live in echo chambers. We all pretty much, with some exceptions, I would say by and large, most people hang out with people in speak, the same language as them, obviously same kind of socioeconomic group, similar political opinions, similar kind of jobs.
And we all generally kind of agree with each other and that feels really good, but it's not reality. And I think it's really useful sometimes to listen to sometimes really, really strongly opposing voices. And it's actually. it's good. It makes you a better person, but also it's allowed me to understand where some of this comes from.
I understand some of the distrust of authority. most of the content comes from the US and I know there's a historical anti-government, anti-authority streak, and United States in particular for historical reasons, but in general are distrust of authority. And you know, we have to accept that medics and scientists have made horrible mistakes in the past.
Thalidomide being a great example. That's a fact. That's true. And it's [00:18:00] very easy to play on people's fears that we don't trust the scientists and they got it wrong. When it comes to the COVID vaccines. so many people out there took the COVID vaccine and then got COVID and they said it didn't work.
This vaccine does not work. And I can understand that. you have to be able to counter that and explain it. But it's also allows me to understand where, people are coming from. And I, think that's quite useful as well. And the third. Reason to stay. And I think for me personally, the most satisfying is access and engagement.
And that's to three groups of people, really important groups of people, not so much other scientists in medics. That was the Twitter heyday. That's long since gone, but to the general public. So almost all of my audience now are non medics. as I said, I, get hateful messages and really horrible stuff, which I try and ignore, but I get messages of thanks and appreciation, and that's satisfying.
You get access to journalists. So most journalists use X still. That's who they quote, that's where they take their inspiration from and they take their material from. And if all they see are these [00:19:00] contrarian, extremist voices, they will publish that in the press. But at the same time, if you stick around there, they will come to you.
And I've had interviews and all kinds of mass media. In both the UK and the states and it's, besides the fun of it, it gets your message out there. I've been invited onto some podcasts recently with massive, massive audiences. I've not actually done some of them because I think they're probably slanted against me and I, worried about, you know, kind of gotcha situation, but that's where the access is.
Most people get their news now. Well, not most people, at least many people get their news from social media. So engaging with journalists is really important. You're never gonna get that on something like Blue Sky. And also politicians. So key policy makers, you know, I'm gonna name drop here, the Minister of Health at United Kingdom follows me on Twitter.
I'm able to message him directly. I would never get anywhere near someone at level of policy and decision making elsewhere. or probably not, all a hundred US senators, for example. I make that argument in my piece. They're all on Twitter. they [00:20:00] repost things. They see that's how they engage with their public.
Yes, of course, often it's very cynical, electioneering and, populism. But that's where they are. And I think you just lose all of that by stepping away from X, which is really, in terms of size, just can't be matched by the other platforms. So, whilst I accept all the negatives, and, both Tara and Ilan are gonna say things, which I probably largely agree with, and it's very hard to counter them.
But I think there's enough to make people stay. And I still get a lot out of it for the reasons I've explained. So I'll stop there and let others speak. But those are my key arguments, and you can read the full detail in the published paper.
Marc: Thank you, Neil. You made your points, your three points.
Very clear. The other Elon would've loved to hear it, but now it's Ilan to respond. So why he did leave Ilan?
Ilan: So I should preface it by saying this was a terrible idea to go up against Neil in an audio forum because his voice so mellifluous and his argument is, really [00:21:00] well composed and eloquent and, I'm afraid I can't bring the same, soothing argument.
But think I will try to bring a dose of reality, which is that, Twitter is, or if we wanna call it, x is now a horrible place to be and to hang out. some of the things that Neil has stated. I will concede, I think that it is important that there is someone there pushing back.
And so I'm very grateful that Neil has volunteered as tribute. I would not ask anybody else to do that. I would not put it on any of the listeners to this podcast. I would not put it on any, infectious disease clinicians or scientists, because Neil takes in inordinate amount of abuse, and I think he's really downplayed just how much abuse he has been exposed to.
as I'm sure, Tara can also commiserate. so while I think that in theory, it. Be really important that there's somebody there to counter, some of these tides of, misinformation. I think that it's unrealistic to [00:22:00] ask that of, ID practitioners, for one thing because the way that the algorithm works is really slanted against you.
as we've seen, explicitly stated recently by Elon Musk, he really has his thumb on the algorithm in a very personal and direct way to make sure that those voices and those, opinions that are inconvenienced, are silenced. so the algorithm will prioritize those, voices that are accordant with the owner's political beliefs, and will suppress those that are, heretical.
Or, to be frank, you know, truthful. the main fact is that this is not a level playing field and it's, not, an effective place where scientists can now communicate as a result of that. we know that the platform is inundated with, trolls and bots, influence farmers from eastern European countries and from Russia and from many places purporting to be, Joe Average [00:23:00] from Texas.
many of these accounts, pushing for influence are, deceptive by their very nature. And this has been unmasked recently by a new feature introduced to Twitter where you can actually see where people are from, counter to what they claim. partly what it comes down to is what is your goal of, of using social media? If it is to, communicate with senators, I would argue that senators are not listening to your tweets on social media. Perhaps with few exceptions. You know, maybe when you have 120,000 followers, they might, pay a bit more attention to you.
But I think that it's, not really achievable for your average person. I think that you're gonna have much more luck, and, you're gonna be much more effective. actually just calling the offices of your congressional representatives rather than trying to peddle and influence online. if on the other hand, using social media is to engage with your colleagues.
We know that. Everybody has left, Twitter, almost everybody. There are some, recalcitrant holdouts that have [00:24:00] remained, but by and large, the ID community just isn't there anymore. And this is a trend that is being observed, across science. And in fact, recent polls, for example, have suggested that, the vast majority of, responding scientists have already departed.
Many of them have migrated to Blue Sky. many have migrated to LinkedIn, and I think that there's been a huge increase in activity on LinkedIn that, corresponds with the demise of Twitter in much the same way that Blue Sky has, benefited. so. It's no longer a place where you can, meaningfully engage with colleagues as a result.
And I think that it is, no longer an effective place where you can, outreach to the general public. And I think that, those that are left are not necessarily representative of the general public or even are the general public. I think many of these accounts are semi-automated, troll farms and I just really don't think that there's much benefit to remaining.
[00:25:00] Finally, in addition to it being a thoroughly unpleasant experience, the fact is that science communication on Twitter is now ineffective. we know that. Partly as a result of the way that the algorithm works and suppressing links. but also because, of the inert nature of these, troll users that are not necessarily clicking on science articles.
Ilan: We know that sharing science, in these spaces is ineffective. And this has been, reported by individual journals as well as across the board by Alt Metric, which is an organization that measures, web traffic and, from where, traffic originates to scientific articles. And we know that although Blue Sky comprises just, a 10th at best of the user base of Twitter, it now drives the majority of, web traffic to scientific articles.
So I think that's, I. the crux of, my position is that not only is it unpleasant, it's ineffective, and I think there's [00:26:00] really no reason that, most individuals, aside from Neil should continue to serve, remain on Twitter.
Angela: Wow. Thank you so much, Ilan and Neil. I have so many questions, but I would like to let Tara give her, take on, what you've said, but maybe first start with what she wrote in the letter, that really struck me and that I was so happy that, we were able to publish Tara.
Tara: Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, and, I agree, you know, mostly with Ilan, but with some of Neil's point as well. the reason that I was on Twitter in the first place, and the reason I have done all this science communication is to reach people to bring science to people in places where they are.
Right. And, that was blogs, that was Twitter, that's, other social media sites. I have not done any of the video stuff 'cause I just feel I'm too old for that. But, that's kind of where a lot of it is moving, I think too. so, you know, I think it is about reaching people where they are and I'm not sure that Twitter is that place anymore.
I also added that I, didn't think was, really brought up in, either of those two [00:27:00] articles is, harassment and especially for women, obviously, it is not only women, one of the, remaining. Prominent scientists on Twitter is also Dr. Peter Hotez, who is a white man, but he's also Jewish.
I see the threats that he gets, repeatedly. So threats, harassment are not something that only women get, but I think there are a lot of things that are uniquely directed at women, including threats of, rape and, sexual, aspects of that. And I wanted to, quote just a little bit from, Alejandra Caraballo on Blue Sky.
Tara: She wrote this very short thread just, just a few days ago that I thought was perfect. she is a woman of color. She's in a tech field. She's a professor. but she also had a big, Twitter account for a while that she closed a year ago. She notes, and, you know, she talks about how much her mental health has improved.
She has less anxiety from not getting death threats all the time. She used to keep literal folders of, death threats, bomb threats, hate speech that she used to get on Twitter. She's now on Blue Sky and she was concerned about her reach, which, I [00:28:00] think is.
something for especially academics to think about. I do interact with journalists a lot. I do a lot of interviews and that was one thing that I was concerned about leaving Twitter. 'cause that's where I had made a lot of those connections. And, and her as well, she notes that she's had one of her busiest weeks in terms of media appearances and outreach from journalists in nearly two years.
just being on Blue Sky. So I think that is something that, is a concern, but I don't think it's insurmountable. I also still, work with journalists on Blue Sky elsewhere, from other pieces that I've, written and things like that. So, Twitter was never any kind of nirvana or anything.
There was always harassment. there was always threats, but. they did put in a moderation team. And especially during COVID, they actually, banned some people. they reduced their reach. They removed people from the platform who were spreading some of the worst misinformation and doing some of the worst forms of harassment.
And then Musk came in and of course all of that was one of the [00:29:00] first things to go, was their trust and safety team. So, for me, don't feel comfortable any longer being on it for myself. It just like Alejandra, it took too much of my mental space.
' I know Neil, one thing also is, you have a blue check on Twitter. I used to have that when it was actual verification and not, what it is today. So I have not, paid for that or anything, and I got almost no reach anymore. So even being on there trying to spread good information, trying to combat some of these things, it was silence, you know, it was radio silence. Whereas I would post the same thing on Blue Sky, where I only have right now, something like 32,000 followers. And it, you know, it gets a lot of shares, a lot of discussion. so I think that's one thing that, you can still do.
Tara: You can still get this reach, you can still reach journalists, you can still have these conversations without as much of the harassment. And I won't say that blue sky is perfect. There have been some controversies recently about moderation and, things like that. and who it's safe for. But I do think it is better, and if I'm talking to trainees or to people who want to be interested in [00:30:00] social media, I really can't in good faith, recommend that they try out Twitter just because of what it has become.
I do recommend, LinkedIn as well and, Blue Sky and, things like that. And I have a good Facebook following too. I mean, it's, not huge, but it is active. and Facebook also is of course, owned by an oligarch and there are all sorts of ethical issues with that as well. But I think the, blocking and, those capabilities are just better on there than on Twitter where the, possibility for all these pylons and all of this harassment, really are, I think, problematic.
And the last thing I just wanted to address was that, that issue of echo chambers. it's important for scientists especially to understand, what. People who are outside of our, normal social circles are saying, but I don't think it's necessary to be on Twitter to do that. for one, again, Twitter, I think honestly, makes those echo chambers appear worse because of bots and trolls and, those influence farmers and you don't know how much of those reactions are actually legitimate [00:31:00] or real.
Or are just, from those kind of rage chambers that seem to be amplified more on Twitter than they are in real life. I mean, in real life, I'm a science focused person, but come from a blue collar family. Most of my relatives are very red. all of them support Trump, so I don't have to go outside of anywhere but my family to hear those, opinions, to know what other people are talking about. So, I can see for people who live maybe in, Manhattan and are only surrounded by, people who look and think like them, that, you'd wanna know what other people are saying.
But I think for a lot of us, especially those of us in middle America, where we can't avoid, we can't be in an echo chamber 'cause that's not where we live. I think that's becomes a little bit less important potentially for some of us. So.
Angela: thank you so much, Tara. Very interesting, commentary.
I'm just gonna quickly interject for our listeners who aren't always on Twitter, what is the blue check verification nowadays? you alluded to that,
Tara: as far as I understand it now, it's, just a [00:32:00] paid service. Like you pay so much money, and you get a blue check and then that will raise you in the algorithm Back in the day, it used to be just that you were verified, like you had to give your ID or something that showed you are who you say you are. But now I think that has changed a little bit, but I'm not sure of all of the details, quite frankly.
Ilan: and it was not just, verification that you were who you said you were, but also that you were somebody notable that was worth boosting.
And so, many of us got our blue checks during COVID when, Twitter intentionally wanted to promote trustworthy voices from healthcare and from science. there was. and implicit understanding that if, something came from an account that had this blue check, they were authentic and they were trustworthy.
whereas, once, Elon Musk took over and decided to monetize that service, both of those aspects were gone. Both the veracity of, knowing that, the, person is who they claim to be, but also promoting, not necessarily [00:33:00] trustworthy or reputable voices, but voices from anybody who's, willing to, pay to, have that, amplified, soapbox.
So the process right now really just is a payment. Neil, you're nodding your head.
Neil: Yeah. So just agreeing with what, Tara Nilan said. Absolutely right. I got, got a blue check during COVID and that was kind of a status symbol 'cause it boosted you, but also it meant you were someone who had at least some kind of expertise or had something worth saying.
Elon Musk pretty quickly just turned it into paid service. So anyone just pays and you get the blue check or blue tick, British English and it boosts you.
that's a real shame. I think it, it lost a lot, or functionality and now you've got all sorts of trolls and bots with the blue check. It's completely meaningless now, essentially. So, yeah, that was a big loss, I think, and that was one of the single worst things that happened to the site in terms of user experience.
Neil: I completely agree with that. Yeah.
Ilan: It was pretty funny for a very short period when it was first possible that anybody could come up with, blue check and they could claim to be whoever they [00:34:00] wanted. There was a lot of impersonation of major brands and of major celebrities, , the Pope for example, it made for some, laughs for a few days, but quickly that, deteriorated into what we all, anticipated was going to come, which is suppression of true expertise and promotion of, bad faith actors that were, willing to, pay to play.
Neil: And I've just come back in on the, issue of, harassment and abuse because it's really important. I think so, yeah. It's, a major problem, I would say. I think, you know, Tara, you did mention this, that it's not actually new to Twitter or X It did precede Elon Musk. got lots of horrible, horrible abuse, long before Elon Musk, took over.
, One thing that I learned about myself was that I found that it didn't bother me.
Neil: It's not that I may know someone who isn't bothered normally by insults. I think personally I find a way of dealing it by realizing that firstly, a lot of them are bots. They're not real people, and it's very hard to be offended by someone who doesn't exist. and then one thing which [00:35:00] I always have in my mind is, and a, very close colleague of mine, told me, it's always stayed with me, he said, never worry about criticism from people you would not take advice from.
And I just always say that back to myself. But I would say, it's not a new thing. it's got a lot worse under Elon Musk, I think. And it's become not just anti-science or disagreement with my views, it's personal. It's, hateful. I'm Jewish. I get a lot of egregious which I think is also, generated by bots and trolls, but some of it's genuine and it's deeply horrible.
There are certain particular themes that recur, you know, at Nuremberg Trials 'cause you're a criminal because of vaccination is evil and.
I kind of see now as ridiculous, but it's actually really quite dark and sinister. I've not yet had explicit, death threats directly, which is a good thing. I think that may be where I draw the line. It's been vague stuff about you should be in front of a war crimes tribunal and this kind of stuff, and I can fairly easily brush that off as [00:36:00] absurd.
I think if I had a direct or credible threat to my life or to my family, I may draw the line then, but it's not actually happened yet. And at Blue Sky as well, you also made this point. It's not full of, angels and, perfection as well. just to give you an example, when, that insurance, director in the US was, murdered at point blank range, you're putting aside what you think of medical insurance company in the us The, the guy was shot point, blank range, and there were people celebrating that on blue sky, which to me is extremely distasteful and pleasant.
I think, there is a bit of counterweight to these issues, but they're very real. my number one advice to anyone is if it upsets you and it bothers you, just leave. You don't need it. 'cause it's definitely a reality of life and social media and it is unpleasant.
There's no question about it.
I think there's kinda two different things though. One are just like insults and, things like that. And, I still get those. I am, you know, all sorts of bad words and. Those, wash off like, water on duck's back.
Tara: I think. But though, especially for, women, because such a high [00:37:00] percentage of us have been sexually assaulted, have been raped. That when you get those threats, which are not as common, but I have a folder of them as well. I sent some to some people at one point 'cause they didn't believe me that, Twitter was, as bad as it was and, they were kind of shocked at some of that behavior and some of it spills over, I've gotten emails, so somebody who, saw something that I posted on social media, searched me on Google, sent an email to my university address.
So they know where I'm at, potentially, could come to my office, my classroom, whatever. That's when it starts to get, more scary for me. And that's where it starts to get more real. And I actually had, this was a million years ago, back in the blog days, that that one person did come to my office, like literally just showed up, knocked on my door and, security, had to escort him out.
And I went home for the rest of the week, honestly. but I think for women, we, just have more of those experiences. And so when we get those, , you can't tell [00:38:00] if it's a, bot or a real person. Always, but I think it becomes a little bit more of that flight or fight response.
And, even if it's online, even if you don't know it's real, you don't know that it's not either. .
So that's something that, again, is not unique to women, but I think, it happens more and that it can be a little bit more triggering because of those real life, responses and, experiences that we've had in the past.
Angela: I had not thought of that, Tara. I hadn't thought about the fact that at baseline, there are so many stories undocumented, but told orally of women being harassed. it's just obviously not something you wear on your sleeve.
So it is true that we are starting from a space where, in real life. And then you go to this platform. And I do worry that it would trigger in a way that could be more devastating because of where you're starting from to begin with.
Ilan: and I think this was, something that was really illuminating about Tara's response, to add her, perspective as a woman. And I, think that was really [00:39:00] valuable, because obviously, Neil and I are not attuned to that in the same way.
And, similarly, holding space for our. colleagues of color who, suffer abuse much, much, worse and, disproportionate compared to, Neil and, and myself. especially women of color. And we've already heard some, really horrific descriptions from some of our colleagues on Blue Sky, in the wake of Tara Prying open this, really ugly side of, the conversation that we didn't, adequately, discuss in our piece.
So, thank you, Tara.
Marc: So we're all aware of, the bad things on, Twitter and, now X And one of the, I think most striking examples is the tweet from Donald Trump after the publication of, hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for acute COVID, published by the DDDF, our Han team.
I think that wheat was viewed 80 million times in a week, and it completely changed, the scenario, for example, in Europe. Randomized trials no longer functioned as people didn't want to be randomized [00:40:00] anymore. They just wanted to have the hydroxychloroquine for their treatment. Are we aware of the opposite where Twitter or X had an effect that really benefited human health?
Neil: That's a good question. I mean, I think during the height of the pandemic, I think there was a lot of really high quality information circulating, and that was the peak of what was then called id Twitter, for example, the recovery trial, which became the standard of care for treating severe COVID with steroids, for example.
I first heard about that on Twitter. I remember I was sitting in our office at work and I saw the news and we started discussing it as specialists. And this was a great breakthrough because we were really struggling at that point, and that was circulated very widely.
I think that was probably repeated a lot at the height of the pandemic. So that was really positive and really useful. notably, just as a bit of an aside, I, I find it interesting that. A lot of the COVID contrarians insist [00:41:00] that Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine work fantastically for COVID, but were suppressed 'cause they're cheap, generic medications.
And they'll say, well what about dexamethasone? That works great. It certainly wasn't suppressed. So, you know, where's, your argument there? I think that actually happened multiple times during COVID. It just has a lot less impact. And newsworthiness, we probably have a memory bias of the bad stuff and some of the crazy stuff that got promoted during then.
But that's just one example I can think of. I think there's a lot of positive messaging during COVID. I think also it becomes a very fine balance thinking about the bigger picture of disseminating. Correct information or we consider correct and true in suppressing the nonsense. A lot of people actually see that in itself as a form of suppression.
People who are contrarian, who, maybe are not the hardcore conspiracy theorists, but just have a little attraction to that say, well, you know, you're just pushing out all this mainstream messaging from the government and you're not allowed to say anything contradictory. and anyone who speaks out, [00:42:00] who says something else is silenced, they actually view this completely the opposite way, which is interesting.
in terms of suppression of what we consider wild nonsense. Sometimes they see that, often they lay public, just says, well, here's a doctor with an opposing view. Why is his career being ruined? 'cause he thinks differently, and that's quite powerful as well. So I think we have to tune into that a little bit also.
but yeah, there was a lot of positive use. I think that's changing a lot. I think the extreme or conspiratorial. Stuff gets amplified a lot more, partly because of who owns X, partly because of who is the current health Secretary of the United States, which has brought in itself a whole lot of challenges.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is a well-known anti-vaccine activist, and now he's in a position of tremendous power and influence, although even his rise in itself. I wonder if that almost grew from social media amplifying all these very contrarian, conspiratorial voices to the point where it became mainstream and acceptable and popular that somebody like the president of the United [00:43:00] States felt it was an okay thing to put someone on the extreme fringes to us in a position of mainstream power.
It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's almost a warning, I think is, if you don't push back on it conceit the mainstream to people like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Next thing you know, you wake up, he's the health secretary driving policy, and we're in a bigger mess than we ever were before. we're in a bad place, I think with, health, and science, misinformation and disinformation.
Angela: I have some questions. Neil, or any of you really, is there an estimate of how many. So-called people on X are actually bots. even the blue checks obviously say nothing now. are you so sure that, RFK or whoever has so much influence with actual human beings, on that platform?
how much do we know about bots and farms and whatnot?
Neil: I don't think I have a number. I would guess, I don't know, maybe if, even if it's 10 or 20%, when you're talking about millions upon millions of people, it's a lot. There are [00:44:00] ways where you can check someone's account, for example, in terms of the quality of their followers and whether they're automated or not.
There are ways of checking it. I think last time I looked at mine, it was something like seven or 8% were considered. bots or automated accounts of my followers and imagine it might be higher. that's a significant percentage when you talk about tens of millions of users. I think when it comes to somebody like Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. I think in terms of, the, the opinion polls that I read, I think unfortunately he does have a lot of popular support, whether that's because of tribal politics and you know, if somebody supports the current president, they'll support his appointees partly. But I think he has genuine support and influence, which is quite worrying frankly.
Angela: Neil, this is not to pile on you, but you do happen to be the one person in this group who has, stuck with the pro argument.
You talked about echo chamber, right? And, making sure that. in blue sky it might be an echo chamber for more liberal leaning [00:45:00] people. whereas at XI worry that it's actually now become an echo chamber for the opposite. Do you ever wonder whether your presence there, your remaining there given all the algorithms given, Elon Musk's finger on the scale at all times?
From what we can tell, do you ever worry that your decision to stay there, you're actually playing into a sense of, oh, here we are still fair, we still have alternate voices.
Are you sure that you're not being somehow manipulated?
Neil: I think that's a good point and a good argument just by staying gives it legitimacy and it's just buying into it and feeding all of it. I think that's definitely a very fair argument. I think there are still enough reasons to stay, as I've put out in my piece and it's discussed earlier, it's definitely, there are pros and cons, but I, think that is a good point.
I would just push back a little bit and say, about the pre Elon Musk era. So the site was invented and founded by someone called Jack Dorsey, who was a significant fund to the Democrat party. [00:46:00] So quite reasonably, someone who is a hardcore Republican, red could say, well, he's just gives the money to the Dems and the Libs.
that, that's just an echo chamber for them. So historically, that's been the case There's no question about the editorial content, but I think you can also get into slightly murky waters with, leaving a product because you don't like the owner. I've got an Apple iPhone and I know the late Steve Jobs was, by all accounts, not the most pleasant individual.
Neil: Yeah. I think he made great, electronic goods, for example. we can get into any number of big companies or things that we use every day, or artists whose music we listen to, who we really don't like the opinions of this singer or the writer, but we listen to the music 'cause it's fantastic.
So I think you can get into a little bit of a slippery slope. I accept it's a bit different because, okay, you may not like the owner. it is one thing, but he does have such significant editorial control of the content. I do accept that. the bottom line is I think it is a fair point, and something you have to consider.
but I think for me, just putting my viewpoint. [00:47:00] Of the reasons to stay. There are just enough there, but I accept the argument for sure.
Marc: Neil, let's say the freedom of speech right that comes with social media, of course, is crossed by all the threats, all the hate mail, all the misinformation.
will there ever be a, a red line that we can say, if this red line is passed, we should just close down the system? Or is this freedom of speech through the socials without limits?
Neil: you've got into a very age old argument about freedom of speech and what that means, freedom of speech.
It seems to be such a simple concept, but it's just interpreted in so many different ways. And for me, it's really, I see quite simply, I, profoundly believe in freedom of speech. I think anyone should have the right to promote whatever opinion they believe in until it either incite or threatens violence.
That's a red line, and that's not acceptable, and that's an [00:48:00] abuse free speech. And I take the exact same position. When it comes to physical threats of harm. or other. Direct serious threats to either yourself or your colleagues or your family.
That's an absolute red line. And even I would have to say at that point, enough is enough.
Marc: Yeah. But when is it enough? Because the threats are made. And most of the times we don't even know who made the threat because these are usually anonymous accounts or blogs or whatever.
when is enough? So do we have to wait for casualties or not?
Neil: I would say not. I really don't want us to get to the point where there are casualties. I, have to say, the threat of violence does worry me to some extent. I remember. I was actually invited onto quite a high profile, podcaster in the states with millions of listeners who I would say, like many of the most popular ones, has a more kind of right wing viewpoint.
and it was just around the time who [00:49:00] Charlie Kirk was murdered, who, you may well be aware of. Was it quite a, again, quite a Trump supporting, I would say highly conservative. activist, and you can disagree with everything he said, but it's pretty damn scary when someone gets shot and murdered and he was a young guy.
So that put things into perspective for me to some extent. And I thought, you know what, it's all nice and good to try and promote science and argue with people. And yes, sometimes, you know, I like a bit of back and forth, as much as the other person, but when it's getting to the level of physical threats of violence, that's just way beyond anything I want to be involved in.
And that definitely did put me off a lot. so I think, that's the point at which everything's just going far too far. I don't think any scientist or medic needs to be getting anywhere close to any of that kind of, even suggestion of a threat. so if it's a throwaway, abusive comment by a bot.
That's one thing, but if it's a credible threat to safety, then that has to be a red line. I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me on that.
Marc: one of my Dutch colleagues who is still on, [00:50:00] Axis, Marion Koopmans, she's a virologist. And actually during the pandemic, not sure whether that is still the case.
She needed personal protection. She could no longer travel by public transport alone. She was under constant personal protection. she was very visible and prominent on the socials. I can't claim, and I won't claim that there is a causal relationship, but being visible as a woman speaking up is a risk and that risk is amplified by social media, is my statement.
Tara: Well, we certainly saw that here in the US too with, Tony Fauci, who had to have security and had credible threats against him. So, you know, I don't think it is, limited to social media, but yes, for scientists, I think that's where we get a lot of our visibility is social media and, journalistic interviews that come, as, part of being, influential on, social media.
So I, think that is something that, again, is, always in, the back of my mind. And I live, you know, in the middle of nowhere. So I don't have to worry about transit or anything [00:51:00] like that. but a lot of my colleagues do, and a lot of them.
Have workplaces that are, very prominent and that have a lot of people going in and out of them. So I know that's certainly been a concern. And I'm not sure how we, deal with that. 'cause it's not only social media, just that's one of the places where people rise as far as influence.
Angela: And Ilan, any thoughts?
Ilan: I think a lot of what we're talking about is, how Twitter was at one point. when we extol, the potential benefits and, those potential harms are still there, but without the benefits. And I think that's where the calculus really shifts. so, I had, a lot of disturbing, messages that were sent to me, but I never felt, unsafe per se. But again, acknowledging that, I'm, in a different position than somebody, who's a woman and, perhaps more vulnerable to, those fantasies being acted out.
I'm six four, well north of 200 pounds. I won't tell you how far north, but, so, you know, my, I don't worry too much about, walking [00:52:00] down the street, but if, you know, people are already concerned at baseline, then, being in an antagonistic environment where there's additional, toxicity spewed onto them, I think is not a very compelling argument.
Angela: Yeah, I fully agree. And I see your point though, Neil, that blue sky as the alternative that I know, I'm gonna bring up Blue Sky because it's the one that was the easiest to use. 'cause it looks so much like Twitter. That's why our journal went there. not complicated at all.
I do see the concern that right now, blue Sky, from what I can tell, I'm on it as an individual and also we are on it as the journal. it, is much more left-leaning. it's not entirely centrist either, you know? And there is a certain worry that, for me actually, and it's like a, a pleasant worry.
It's like, oh, it's such a nice place to be. Everyone's so nice, I'm quite shy. I don't post as much as I would like to. But when I do post, people are just nice. You know? There's just like lack of [00:53:00] abuse.
my worry is almost like, this isn't really real. Like this is too easy. so we're missing something, right? We're missing, real humanity. I don't know. Mark.
Marc: I think this is, the key problem that everything that we consider as science has become politicized.
And your scientific opinion is either right wing or left wing, which has nothing to do with the content, but with your political, favoritism. and that is also something that I think has been amplified enormously by the socials.
Tara: Well, and those class tensions often kind of break down along political lines too, right? I mean, we see in the US and the Democratic Party that people who are more educated, who have, college degrees, graduate degrees, they tend to vote Democrats. I mean, again, nothing is perfect, right? but that is the tendency.
And so. during COVID we also saw science itself become very polarized, especially vaccination that, you know, I've given, talks on vaccine hesitancy for, you know, almost 20 years. And it used to [00:54:00] be like you had the left-leaning, kind of crunchy people, you know, who, didn't like pharmaceutical companies, didn't like medicine, but, tended to vote Democrat, lean left.
They didn't like vaccines because they weren't pure and you know, they were pharmaceutical products. So then you had folks on the right, kinda more libertarian leaning who didn't like mandates, so they didn't like vaccinations for that. some of that were religious. Didn't like the fact that some vaccines, for viral products, were produced in cells that came from aborted fetuses in the 1950s.
So, you had these divides, that were political, but you saw it on both sides. And, now, I mean, there was just a recent pew survey out looking at. people trusting vaccines and it is very clear that since the pandemic Democrats, their support for vaccines hasn't really wavered, but for Republicans, it has cratered.
Like, you know, I can't remember the exact numbers, but, it is almost 50 50 on the Republican side as far as support for vaccines. So it has become very polarized here in a way that it was not [00:55:00] previously.
Neil: I just wanna follow in on about the politicization of, vaccines because I post a lot on X now, and of course I'm overwhelmingly pro-vaccine.
That's become my main identity. My main interest as Ilan knows, likewise, it, it's fungal infections that doesn't get a lot of interest online. So vaccines have become kind of the issue and, and that's what people are kind of, most interested, I think, to hear about from my content. I find it. Quite upsetting in a way, that science should be politicized in any way.
Of course it is for many reasons, but one of, for me, the beauties of science, that there is so much division and opinion, which is fine, opinion is fine, but we've always got this anchor of this objective truth, which is science. You can believe A or you can believe B, but the reality is C, and that's science, it's become overtaken by politics and, there's an assumption when I post about vaccines that I'm.
a leftist, a de, you know, a lib. And I get this all the time from people saying, you are a party when the, you know, meaning the [00:56:00] Democrats. I'm not even American. You know, it's not never mind being a Democrat member or a supporter, or that I must be somehow, you know, an ultra liberal, ultra left.
I don't wanna get too much into my personal politics, but I'm really not, I would say I'm very centrist. I have problems with certainly the far left, as much as I do with the far right. I think there are big issues on both sides, frankly. But I, I wouldn't describe myself and people who know me would say, I'm not a leftist lab, hardcore Democrat.
Neil: Even if I was American, I don't think I would be. And sometimes I might post something and people say, oh, you were great on vaccines, but I don't agree with you on that. I thought you were one of us. leftist, or vice versa. So it's just this idea that. Being Provac means you must be a leftist. It's to me quite ridiculous and absurd and kind of sad actually because I always, want science to be separate from politics and to objective ground truth, but of course it's not.
And it gets used and abused by politicians for their own end.
Angela: Yeah, absolutely. And science, if anything, is not monolithic. Right. And [00:57:00] vaccines are not monolithic. And that is what's so frustrating, I think, is that. Anybody who's interested in actual facts would understand, knows that, you know, vaccines are very heterogeneous, right?
The need for these side effects of, all of that has to be weighed case by case, vaccine by vaccine, population by population, right? We all know this. But I think we're living in a context now where that kind of nuance, there's no place for that. You know, like Mark, you said earlier, Provax, ugh, what does that even mean?
there are hundreds of vaccines out there and you know some, sure, some I'm not. Because there's no need for a population. for example, we don't do TB vaccination in Switzerland because there's no longer enough risk, to justify giving that vaccine. I'm not provax when it comes to BCG vaccine, you know?
but that is lost completely in these spaces .
Neil: What I would say is, well, we have to accept the scientists make mistakes. We [00:58:00] get it wrong, and we have to accept that there have been real mistakes in the history of science.
Many. but there are lots of times where we get it wrong. But my answer to that always is if you think a scientist has made a mistake or you don't agree with what a scientist said, ask a different scientist. Don't use as your alternative some complete conspiracy theory, crank as your alternative.
go to a better expert or go to a different expert. And that's where things go wrong, I think.
Angela: I fully agree. I mean, scientists are just humans, right? to hold them up to a standard that's unrealistic is again, sort of a symptom of, the larger problem, I think, where we're just reduced to these extremist kind of, manican beings where, you have to be either perfect or you're useless, and I'll go elsewhere.
and yeah, I'm glad you're staying on, X, Neil, because we need people who can communicate nuance and who can engage with people who probably hate you. but you can try to show that. No, [00:59:00] no. We can have conversations.
Marc: Well, I think we can continue for hours with this discussion.
And actually the last 30 minutes, I don't think we mentioned infectious diseases a lot. We came close to the biggest problem on earth, but anyway, and it all started with social media and the socials have a big impact on many of these things. So before we wrap up, is there a final thing for you, Ilan and Neil?
Let's start with Ilan to share with the audience the topic of today.
Ilan: You know, I think all of us mourn and lament the loss of ID Twitter, what it was, at least all of those who, experienced it and experienced the benefits of community, especially, types of, COVID.
It was really, indescribably helpful to so many. and for many of us, that same, level of, benefit hasn't yet been achieved by existing, platform, whether it is X or whether it is Blue [01:00:00] Sky, it's LinkedIn or something else. and I think it's easy to get discouraged, but really we can create the communities that, that we wish to exist, by participating and being active participants, on, any of these platforms. I would argue and have argued that, that's an uphill battle on X now. but certainly on Blue Sky, there is a thriving infectious disease community with, over 1500, infectious disease associated accounts that have been curated, and can easily be subscribed to through, the starter parts that have been, compiled.
I would, caution people to get too discouraged about, how the current environment falls short of, delivering some of those benefits. And I think we can, work together to regenerate. maybe not reproduce in the exact same way, what Twitter was in its height.
But, certainly, a platform that is functional, that allows us to, create community. and that is, [01:01:00] devoid of, some of these, harms. and threats can be minimized. And so, for me, that community is, gonna be on blue sky. for everybody that might be different, but I think we need to continue to strive towards it and continue to, be active participants in trying to create that community that we wish to participate in.
Neil: its part of me wishes. Social media had never been invented. Actually, I'm not sure it's been a net benefit to humanity. I think it brings a lot of harms and abuses, and that's all forms of social media. I think if it was all just ended tomorrow, the world would not be a worst place.
It might be a better place, but it's a reality. Uh, it's here to stay. we are going to be on it. Our kids are gonna be on it. it may be that, if you came back in one or two years, everything we've been talking about is obsolete because things change incredibly quickly. and I think part of sticking around on X for me, and one of the arguments I make in my pieces, just kind of hang in there and see where it goes next because Elon Musk may get bored and sell it to someone who decides to make it a lot [01:02:00] better experience.
I don't know, but I think it's here to stay for all of the negatives. And I think just to finish up by really agreeing with what Ilan said, whether it's on blue sky or somewhere else, we've gotta be in there and fly the flag for science and medicine because if we don't, it will just be crushed.
And the most extreme, uh, anti-science voices will just come to dominate if we let that happen. So whether we like it or not, it's here to stay and we've just gotta be in there and help mold it for some good, and actually bring people important information, which ultimately might improve their health, which is really what, we are all about.
I think that's hopefully something that we can agree on to finish with.
Angela: Yeah, totally. Yeah. Thank you. You two. just want the listeners to know Tara had to drop off early because she had to go pick up her son. Hopefully, you got her main messages already. I am now gonna entirely drop my mask, Neil, and reveal my total bias for Blue Sky something you and Ilan both were saying. I have to note [01:03:00] here we found Tara, who I thought brought such important points, through Blue Sky.
She saw, your pro con piece that we had put out, as the journal. We had put it out on Blue Sky. She made some comments and Ilan very graciously said, you know, you're absolutely right.
Didn't think about that when we were writing this. Why don't you write a letter to the editor? So it's interesting that, yes, blue Sky is much smaller, there's no question. But as far as I can tell the Accounts that are on it are not bots. So they are real people. and there are just so many good interactions, real human interactions, even if overall it's a modest number, it's producing something and it brought us, Tara, which to me, it was really important to have that voice.
I'm revealing my total bias. Poor Neil, you've been absolutely, very gracious to be the one lone voice, for a platform that all of us are clearly quite skeptical about. so thank you. Thank you to all of our guests. Neil [01:04:00] Stone in London, uk, Ilan Schwartz in Durham, North Carolina, USA, and Tara Smith and Kent, Ohio, USA.
And thank you for listening to Communicable the CMI Comms podcast. This episode was hosted by Angela Huttner in Geneva, Switzerland, and Mark Bonton In you Tracked the Netherlands. It was edited by Katie Hostettler.
Oy. This time it was not peer reviewed. The theme music was composed and conducted by Joseph McDade. This episode will be citable with a written summary referenced by A DOI in the next eight weeks. And any literature we've discussed today can be found in the show notes. You can subscribe to Communicable wherever you get your podcasts, or you can find it on es schmid's website for the CMI Comms Journal.
Thanks for listening and helping CMI, comms and Esid move the conversation in ID and clinical microbiology. Further along,
[01:05:00]