Abstract
Conversations about social media are too often dominated by opinion, anecdote, and unreliable factoids. We argue doggedly over questions like, "Should every lab be on twitter?" and "Does blogging help or hurt scientific careers?" Definitive answers are appealing, but flawed assumptions can lead scientists and graduate students to misdirect precious hours of effort and become disillusioned. Worse, we might possibly do more harm than good by inadvertently polarizing audiences, reinforcing misinformation, and politicizing research. Given the high stakes of getting it wrong, particularly with extremely limited resources and time, science communicators need to be as rigorous in our approach to engagement and outreach as we are in the science we share. I'll highlight recent research from the science of science communication, network science, and psychology to challenge common assumptions and arguments for (and against) social media.