I first compared normalized engagement: likes, shares + comments per 1000 followers.

You can see the big changes in Twitter/X over time, plus the stark differences in engagement between FB/LI versus Threads/Bluesky, with Mastodon in the middle.

Comparing the percentage of comments that are negative versus neutral/positive on each platform, you can also see that (a) Twitter has always had proportionately more trolls than other platforms, but also (b) trolling has massively increased post-Musk.

Sidenote: it's also interesting that negative comments on Twitter/X, Facebook, LinkedIn and Threads are nearly 100% denial, whereas negative comments on Mastodon are 100% from people worried about climate but who are mansplaining me or who want to harass or attack me for different reasons (e.g. not explaining the science the way they think I should, saying that climate action can make a difference, standing firm on the social science of effective communication, being a person of faith, etc.). This platform is #1 for "friendly fire," which is why I still post but don't engage here very much. It's not good for my mental health.

Onward!

I didn't bother to analyze the negative X comments by category this time, but they are not substantially different than the analysis I did previously here. Little imagination, but lots of variety -- because the point isn't to make their point, but rather to reject the need for climate action. In pursuit of that goal, any excuse will do.

Here's the even more interesting part: the absolute values.

Twitter used to be the clear winner for me, but Bluesky is rapidly catching up. Even though I have 3x more followers on X than Bluesky, the actual numbers on positive or neutral engagement here is nearly as high. That's amazing - and this is why, if you want to hear the most from me, I recommend following me on Bluesky directly or on my fediverse bridge account rather than this one. Here it is -> @katharinehayhoe.com

Other interesting platform-specific tidbits:

On Mastodon people were most likely to share, while on LinkedIn they were least likely to.

More people hit the heart button on Threads, but Bluesky was tops for comments.
‪
Bottom line:

One of the main reasons I use social media is to provide accurate + relevant climate info, so I use analyses like this to help inform where best to spend my time. These days, engagement is:

* on its way up on LinkedIn + Bluesky
* holding steady on Mastodon
* headed down on Threads, Facebook + X

I hope this is of interest - feel free to comment and share your own experiences!

PS. I should also mention that my data shows clear evidence of algorithmic changes on Facebook (Fall 2018), X (Fall 2022 and ongoing) and now Threads (Nov 2024) explicitly downweighting climate content.

In Aug 2018, 'clean energy' was added to FB's "socially sensitive topics" list, and my page's growth was cut in half. A few months later, 'climate change' was added. My page growth froze at 46k then decreased, and my engagement dropped about 10x.

Now, changes in the Threads algorithm made in November have similarly frozen my Threads account and tanked engagement there as well. Here's the data below.

For more on how X's changes have boosted denial, read @ketan's analysis here: https://ketanjoshi.co/2023/03/28/musk-is-remaking-twitter-into-a-climate-denier-sanctuary/