Anti-government student protests spread to more Iranian universities
www.bbc.com/news/article...
23.02.2026 21:35
👍 18
🔁 4
💬 0
📌 1
Anti-government student protests spread to more Iranian universities
www.bbc.com/news/article...
Another article without paywall: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home...
"Die fallen auf jeden KI-Müll rein" – Jugendliche fordern Social-Media-Verbot für Menschen über 40 www.der-postillon.com/2026/02/soci...
When I got the contract to write a history of concentration camps in 2014, I hoped to keep the US from ending up here. That didn't work out! But now it's critical to understand how much is already in process and the enormity of what's coming. The sooner we act to stop it, the more people we'll save.
🚨 It's time again for @icamobile.bsky.social's Early Career Colloquium! 🎤 Want to briefly + casually present to early career scholars about a mobile comm project you're working on (any stage)? 📊 Fill this out before 17 February! ✍️
@icasecac.bsky.social @icahdq.bsky.social
forms.gle/pTYBKGZRyWtz...
🤩
As a fan of this interview series, I was stoked when the @icamobile.bsky.social division approached me to share thoughts and projects for their Feb edition of #ScholarInTheSpotlight 😊
Our recent #disconnection study with @klingelhoefer.bsky.social & @adrianmeier.bsky.social 😊
☎️ Calling all early career scholars! Want to talk casually with an @icamobile.bsky.social senior scholar about a mobile comm project you're working on? Fill out this form by 19 January + we'll match you with a senior scholar to provide feedback: forms.gle/hdhayc34dXEb...
Mora Matassi is January's scholar in the spotlight! She is Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences at Universidad de San Andrés in Buenos Aires, Argentina. You can view the full interview with Mora through this link: www.icamobile.org/scholar-mora
for example, mobile telephony in trains in 1926 and car phones in 1955
the live exhibition is available until May 31st. Who joins me for a field trip? 🤓
hey #mobilecomm community @icamobile.bsky.social
For a new exhibition on 100 yrs of mobile telephony, the
Communication Museum in Frankfurt am Main prepared a website w many cool historic photos. 🤳 They also discuss a phoneless future 🤫
www.digitales-museum-fuer-kommunikation.de/expotizer-un...
❤️
Exciting times ahead! In June, our newly elected officers @lisemarienassen.bsky.social, @aliciagilbert.bsky.social, and @deeptiapte.bsky.social will officially step into their roles to take #ICAMobile forward. We look forward to introducing them at the #ICA26 Business Meeting. Stay tuned!
The "smartphones/social media" discourse suffers from some amazing historical amnesia. There was no 2008 financial crisis and no global pandemic starting in 2020, it's all SCREENS SCREENS SCREENS. Major world events? Just the backdrop against which SCREENS happened.
thanks for sharing!
New preprint from our digital disconnection project with @klingelhoefer.bsky.social and @adrianmeier.bsky.social
We find that #disconnection can help to reduce #procrastination.
This plot shows the number of users in the Study 1 sample that self-described as 'addicted' to Instagram versus those who were 'at risk' of clinical addiction. The ratios for the addiction symptom scale are 9:371 and for the perceived addiction 69: 311, suggesting a much greater proportion of users self-perceive as addicted than are actually addicted to Instagram
Excited to see these studies (finally) published in Scientific Reports! 🚨
S1: More social media users perceived themselves as addicted than met clinical addiction criteria.
S2: Increasing perceived addiction hurt perceived control over use and increased self-blame for overuse.
Thread below... 🧵
5️⃣/🔟 In Scientific Reports, 5 of the top 10 most cited articles have an article number of 1.
5️⃣/🔟 In Nature Communications the same: 5 of the top 10 are article 1s.
Coincidence? 👇
scirate.com/arxiv/2511.0...
I think not.
Abstract mal anders: In einem neuen Video der @unimainz.bsky.social gebe ich einen Einblick in unsere neue Studie zu #Disconnection und #Wohlbefinden
#sciencecomm #wisskomm #digitalwellbeing #tiktok
www.tiktok.com/@unimainz/vi...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision.
A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year.
The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:
a 🧵 1/n
Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
thank you Laura ☺️
disco disco party party
A screenshot of the article title "Disconnect to Recharge: Well-Being Benefits of Digital Disconnection in Daily Life" and the abstract.
📬 Pub alert
Do effects of digital disconnection interventions translate to well-being benefits in *daily life*?
Our new ESM study concludes: yes but no... kinda 👽🔋
@klingelhoefer.bsky.social @adrianmeier.bsky.social
Out now in Communication Research
doi.org/10.1177/0093...
NEW PREPRINT 💡
Together with @dougaparry.bsky.social, I just published a new preprint experimentally examining how specific normative cues on social media shape self-disclosure using an innovative simulation approach.
Link: osf.io/preprints/ps...
Read on for more information (1/9) 👇
the article in question, starting with:
"Imagine appearing for a job interview and, without saying a single word, being told that you are not getting the role because your face didn’t fit. You would assume discrimination..."
YEAH WELL
and here we are in 2025, when @economist.com publishes nonsense on AI facereading for evaluating people's hirability -- the lack of historic awareness is staggering
😂
or its chaos cousin Outlook 🥲