Starting in early November, we noticed a LOT of chatter on Twitter/X among physicians about BlueSky. The service, which launched well over 2 years ago, had gotten limited attention up to that point – but things were about to change. Physicians, who had exhibited only modest interest in the platform, suddenly got VERY interested – posting 1,143 times about it in the first 3 weeks of November.
We weren’t the only ones who noticed. BlueSky got a flurry of media coverage from scientific and medical outlets, noting that the platform had emerged as a promising haven for the scientific and medical community, filling the void left by Twitter/X’s recent upheavals. Here are insights from some key articles documenting this migration:
“For the scientific community, the allure of BlueSky lies in its decentralized structure and commitment to fostering meaningful conversations. It’s a welcome antidote to the noise that has overtaken other platforms.” (Science.org)
“BlueSky has become the new go-to platform for many in the medical and scientific fields, offering a cleaner, algorithm-free space where professional connections can flourish.” (STAT News)
“A growing number of physicians and scientists are finding BlueSky’s network refreshing—a place to rebuild the communities that once thrived on Twitter.” (MedPage Today)
“The medical and scientific exodus to BlueSky signals more than just a platform switch; it’s a statement about values and priorities in digital communication.” (Nature)
“With an interface reminiscent of early Twitter, but without the toxic baggage, BlueSky is steadily drawing in professionals looking for a fresh start.” (The Verge)
“For scientists, BlueSky’s simplicity and commitment to discourse over virality are exactly what’s needed.” (Mikey Young Academy)
That was enough to get us started on a path to performing our own analysis of physicians’ activity on the platform. And for us, the beginning of the process was to look at all of those doctors who had posted (on Twitter/X) about BlueSky – and to see if they had established BlueSky handles. We wound up finding over 1,100 who had. And what was really interesting was to look at when they established their BlueSky Accounts:
More than half had joined in the first 3 weeks of November – another clear “hockey stick” for growth. Even more telling was how those thousand doctors used their accounts in November. Their activity on Twitter/X diminished significantly – but activity on BlueSky exploded:
It was beginning to look as if this migration was real. What was needed was a real head-to-head test – and happily, one of the major global medical conferences of the year was scheduled to happen in December – the American Society of Hematology (ASH) was about to host their annual congress in San Diego (#ASH24 – with a link to the hashtag’s BlueSky Feed) from December 6-10.
We gathered every post using the #ASH24 hashtag from both X and Bluesky between 8AM PDT on Friday 12/6 and 8AM PDT on Monday 12/9 (weekends are typically by far the highest-volume posting times at medical conferences). What we found was intriguing in many ways. Some of our key insights:
More Physicians Posted on Twitter – But Perhaps Not As Many More As You’d Think – Physicians’ activity levels is still highest on Twitter/X. No matter how quick BlueSky’s growth as a platform has been, Twitter is still the place to be for most doctors. Physician authors on Twitter/X outnumbered those on BlueSky 929 to 240 (just under 4x more users on Twitter/X). However, it could be argued that for a fledgling platform like BlueSky, getting even that close is pretty remarkable. Also worth noting is that 73% (175) of the physician authors on BlueSky had joined the platform less than a month before the conference, and were likely still “feeling their way” around the platform.
Physicians on BlueSky Were More Likely To Post Original Content – While the doctors posting about #ASH24 on Twitter were more active than those on BlueSky (averaging 7 posts per author vs 5 posts per author on BlueSky), BlueSky authors were significantly more likely to post original content as opposed to merely retweeting other accounts. 57% of the doctors posting on BlueSky had at least 1 original post, while only 40% of the doctors posting on Twitter/X did.
Physicians Enjoyed Better Normalized Engagement on BlueSky – With 4x more doctors posting on Twitter/X, you’d expect to see 4x more engagement on their posts – but you’d be mistaken. They only saw 1.6x more. When normalized for the number of participating physicians, the doctors on BlueSky got more than double the engagement on their posts.
Physicians Engaged Across the Healthcare Ecosystem – Not only were doctors engaging amongst themselves – something we’re accustomed to seeing at medical conferences – but they also engaged with non-MD HCPs, the media and others, creating a truly rich conversation. You can check out the conversation map for the weekend at #ASH24 via this link (caution: only do this on a computer; it’s too much data for a mobile device to process very well!).
The story of physicians and scientists migrating to BlueSky is one of renewal and rediscovery. As Twitter/X has modified its algorithms to make it harder to engage with content users want, BlueSky is emerging as a refuge for professionals seeking meaningful engagement. From rebuilding vibrant networks to thriving at major events like #ASH24, physicians have found a platform that values authenticity and connection. The migration of physicians and scientists to BlueSky represents a broader movement towards platforms that prioritize meaningful interaction over algorithm-driven content. BlueSky’s user-centric approach, combined with its professional-friendly environment, makes it an increasingly attractive alternative to Twitter/X.
It looks as though the #MedSky community is here to stay.
If you’d like to talk to our experts about how BlueSky fits into your HCP Influence mix, drop us a line!
Leave a Reply