Time for Medicine and Public Health to Leave Platform X

Abstract

AbstractFor more than 50 years, digital technologies have been employed for the creation and distribution of knowledge in health services. In the last decade, digital social media have been developed for applications in clinical decision support and population health monitoring. Recently, these technologies have also been used for knowledge translation, such as in the process where research findings created in academic settings are established as evidence and distributed for use in clinical practice, policy making, and health self-management. To date, it has been common for medical and public health institutions to have social media accounts for the dissemination of novel research findings and to facilitate conversations about these findings. However, recent events such as the transformation of the microblog Twitter to platform X have brought to light the need for the social media industry to exploit user data to generate revenue. In this viewpoint, it is argued that a redirection of social media use is required in the translation of knowledge to action in the fields of medicine and public health. A new kind of social internet is currently forming, known as the “fediverse,” which denotes an ensemble of open social media that can communicate with each other while remaining independent platforms. In several countries, government institutions, universities, and newspapers use open social media to distribute information and enable discussions. These organizations control their own channels while being able to communicate with other platforms through open standards. Examples of medical knowledge translation via such open social media platforms, where users are less exposed to disinformation than in general platforms, are also beginning to appear. The current status of the social media industry calls for a broad discussion about the use of social technologies by health institutions involving researchers and health service practitioners, academic leaders, scientific publishers, social technology providers, policy makers, and the public. This debate should not primarily take place on social media platforms but rather at universities, in scientific journals, at public seminars, and other venues, allowing for the transparent and undisturbed communication and formation of opinions.