@rra@post.lurk.org and I have a new, #OpenAccess article out: “Shifting your research from X to Mastodon? Here’s what you need to know”
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2666-3899(23)00323-9
This article is an opinion piece in which we argue that social scientists cannot simply port their work from X to #Mastodon or the rest of the #fediverse. There are key differences in culture, expectations of privacy, and of course topology to consider.
@rwg@aoir.social
Histories of poor social media
research
So, the story so far: there is a diversity of
cultures across the fediverse. And yet,
across the network, there seems to be a
strong desire for privacy among fediverse
users; fediverse users desire not to
be monitored, included in automated
research, or have their posts included in
search engines without their explicit
consent.thx
👍#fedivers
@rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
@rwg@aoir.social @rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
Presumably this is it in webpage format…
Very thorough and insightful. A lot of #journalists could do with reading this.
The lack of privacy is not an issue because almost no information is retained. No phone number, date of birth, address etc which you do mention.
Worth noting that researchers might find communities that they are unlikely to come across elsewhere. Gaining trust with them might be a challenge.
@leighms@mastodonapp.uk @rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
I totally agree on having journalists read this, or if not this, something that breaks them out of any habits they acquired on Twitter.
@rwg@aoir.social
the benefits for both re-
searchers and for the fediverse can be tremendousSry but actually I doubt the “tremendous” benefit for the fediverse … anyway, you do you.
@rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
@rwg@aoir.social I would refrain from calling fediverse (or mastodon) a “platform”. It’s not more or less a platform as is E-Mail (or gemail for that regard). Facebook and X are platforms because they are closed gardens without interoperability, and the term was specifically coined to describe such services. The fediverse is a network, ActivityPub is a protocol and mastodon is a service within this network. @rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
@eest9@chaos.social @rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
Thanks for the feedback! To be honest, I don’t mind using another term. I think “platform” as a term is borderline meaningless, given how many different ways it’s used:
- to describe operating systems
- in reference to gaming systems
- as a means for someone to speak
- as a set of political doctrines
- as a reference to specific corporate social media
So feel free to mentally substitute “service” if you like.
@rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe
Our conclusion:
“While Mastodon and the fediverse are quite distinct from Twitter/X and other corporate social media, and while these systems present new challenges to researchers, the benefits for both researchers and for the fediverse can be tremendous. If researchers work with instance admins to produce useful knowledge, that work can be adopted by the fediverse, helping to improve a rapidly growing network.”
@rwg@aoir.social @rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter@a.gup.pe Oh oh, this is about people who study social networks, not merely those who use social networks to do/publicize research on other topics. Interesting stuff and definitely makes me think that the moment when Twitter was especially easy to study was an unusual time, without super close analogues before or since.
@soaproot@sfba.social @rra@post.lurk.org @commodon@sciences.social @academicchatter
Yeah, I agree. The issue I see is that the easy period lasted long enough, and fueled enough careers, that folks will see the fedi and say, “we can do that there, as well”, without reflecting on the differences.
