You can’t expect the experts to always be setting up dissemination channels on whatever new medium has popped up as part of their obligations. Write books, write articles, write op-Ed’s, write substacks, write tweets, where does it end
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or defend their views and try to persuade people even.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
and yet, when you upset the wrong person in a top heavy field your career can be fucked for it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'll agree to that, but no one should have a thick enough skin to induce them to ignore threats of all degrees to them on Twitter and other social media. Somewhere out there might be someone who means it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The thing about being an "expert" is that you are not dependent on Twitter to get your views out. You can get them out in places like the WaPo, NYT, NPR, FT and other outlets with large audiences. If you don't feel like engaging the mean people on Twitter, there are alternatives
-
Not to mention pier reviewed journals ... but that might be meaner than twitter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Not looking for a fight but reminding that instigation for this conservation was complaint by centrist economist that McCarthyism is silencing their viewpoint. My contention is that it's good for experts with policy relevant knowledge to make views known.
- Show replies
-
-
-
In public health, it really does seem like employment in the field is kind of predicated on not speaking much independently in a way that seems dysfunctional
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.