Social media may be ‘fundamentally at odds’ with science

[Vestige]

This next passage is, in fairness, mostly positive, as it seems to genuinely promote unity ... except, note the middle statement:

Scientists’ homophilic self-sorting online has another, more subtle siloing effect. Social media platforms have provided a temptation for science journalists, scientists, and other science-affiliated actors to follow and retweet each other in an online environment that looks very different from the rest of society. A survey of 2791 US adult Twitter users by the Pew Research Center in 2018 indicated that those most active on this platform are younger (almost a third of Twitter users are under 30 years old), are more likely to identify as Democrats and have at least a college degree, and have higher incomes than US adults overall. Most perniciously, this has allowed scientists to live in their own science-centric bubbles on social media platforms, sheltered from often sizeable cross-sections of citizens that feel disconnected from the scientific community. Meanwhile, scientists share each other’s tweets and—when their instincts get the worst of them—ridicule audiences that they see as “against us” on issues like climate change or evolution.

This statistic may or may not be true, but its juxtaposition with the supposed criticism of divisive and disrespectful behavior patterns is likely to create confusion.  Allow me to highlight the components as I did with the previous passages:
    • Claim: The "science journalists, scientists," and other affiliates have created an insular environment 
    • Claim: This insulated science-minded group is hostile to non-members who oppose said group
    • Claim: This same group is younger  |  Implication: This group is youthful and healthy
    • Claim: This same group is wealthier  |  Implication: This group can easily obtain food, shelter, etc.
    • Claim: This same group is more educated  |  Implication:  This group 'knows better'
The passage seems to be juxtaposing negative behaviors (separating from others, ridiculing others) with superficially-positive outcomes or traits (health, wealth, intelligence).  
Now, these claims may not represent all individuals in the alleged group.  And, certainly, the implications I saw contained in the passage may not be perceived by all who read the article.  Health, wealth, and education can all be neutral gifts, used for negative or positive ends.  Yet, I do not see this balance in the passage.  The passage seems to be, again, superficially critical of the negative behaviors while containing the subliminal message that these negative behaviors come from an elite group, and so perhaps if one were to adopt their behaviors they could become elite too, or that by adopting their traits (becoming wealthy enough, smart enough, whatever) you gain the privilege to partake in these behaviors. ...
It is debatable whether social media platforms that are designed to monetize outrage and disagreement among users are the most productive channel for convincing skeptical publics that settled science about climate change or vaccines is not up for debate
It could be that the intention here is still a fair evaluation or criticism of these behaviors--that is, promoting outrage, or forbidding free and fair dialogue--but once again, the subliminal message seems to be one of agreement.  There is no attempt to strike a balance.  

The passage a little ways below also reveals that, in fact, they do have an established, mainstream, and somewhat exclusionary stance:

Decades of communication research indicate that anecdotal accounts on social media of breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections or severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of how rare both are, will be imprinted in people’s memories much more effectively than pages of sound statistical data documenting herd immunity

Once again, the passage contains what I call "weasel words" - little hints as to what the reader should believe. 
I do not wish to assert, myself, any stance on vaccines or on SARS-CoV-2.  However, here is how I might write a variation on the passage if I intended to remain unbiased:
"The portfolio of communications research that we reviewed indicates that anecdotal accounts of illness, injury, or other matters of public health are disseminated more readily and widely than statistical data and other impersonal means of hypothesis.  Why might this increase information asymmetry?: While statistical data typically represents dozens, or hundreds, or even thousands of study participants, an anecdotal account represents only one or a few experiences.  Yet, through the medium of social media, a statistical report and an anecdote have the same persuasive strength--that is, one post, against another post."

There is some material that suggests that the article might not be wholly bent to favor institutional power:

What evidence reaches which parts of the audience is increasingly up to automated algorithms curated by social media platforms rather than scientists, journalists, or users of the platforms themselves.

Yet, the majority of the content strongly favors institutional power and contains a distinct bellicose tone.  At best, the article is drawing lines in the sand as regards the contest of power between government factions and corporate factions:

With the emergence of virtually unlimited storage space, rapidly growing computational capacity, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence, the societal balance of power for scientific information has shifted away from legacy media, government agencies, and the scientific community. Now, social media platforms are the central gatekeeper of information and communication about science. The scientific community has been slow to react.

Twitter users do not own Twitter.  Facebook users do not own Facebook.  And, I don't 'own' the Bring4th forums, but, I also see the administrators more as stewards, teachers, and friends, rather than owners, oligarchs, and "gatekeepers."  

At present, there is little that science can do to escape this dilemma. The same profit-driven algorithmic tools that bring science-friendly and curious followers to scientists’ Twitter feeds and YouTube channels will increasingly disconnect scientists from the audiences that they need to connect with most urgently. Moving forward, conquering this challenge will require partnerships among the scientific community, social media platforms, and democratic institutions. Scientific logic and access to information are two of the main foundations of enlightened democracies. Distortions to any part of this delicate relationship will inevitably lead to the downfall of the whole system. This also means that it is far too late for Band- Aid solutions.

The rhetoric here is questionable at best.  Juxtaposing "conquering" and "partnerships" in the same call to action here does not paint a rosy picture.  Is this really a call for unity?  Or is it a plan for annexation?  
What is an "enlightened" democracy, as opposed to, well, just democracy?  
Why is the system so fragile--and, if it is so fragile, why would a new system be unwarranted?
What is implied by the phrase, 'too late for Band-Aid solutions'?  Is this meant to incite fear? 

The cause is a tectonic shift in the balance of power in science information ecologies. Social media platforms and their underlying algorithms are designed to outperform the ability of science audiences to sift through rapidly growing information streams and to capitalize on their emotional and cognitive weaknesses in doing so

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this.  Yet, why not suggest a decentralization of these powerful information-parsing tools?  Why does the 'balance of power' have to swing back to another institution?  To me, it just sounds like a changing of the guard, not real change.  I have a scientific research background myself, and I have seen plenty of misinformation and manipulation even in peer-reviewed literature.  That's an endemic problem that is certainly less frequently and less intensely publicized than the problem of social media manipulation.  Both problems can be addressed without occluding the other.

https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/2005/0716
And so the plight, basically, is to call people to awakening without infringing upon their free will. May we say that those who are service-to-self oriented among your peoples and are in positions of leadership are attempting very consciously to entrain peoples’ mind and hearts in fear, in anger, in aggression, and in fear-based actions such as attempting to control resources.