8 ms·
Small share of U.S. adults produce majority of tweets on national politics
- pixelmonkey 7y agoSee the 1% rule of the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) “... only 1% of the users of a website actively create new content, while the other 99% of the participants only lurk.” This is why “social listening” companies (which often amount to “Twitter listening” companies) present a very warped picture of reality when they try to extrapolate general consumer interests from the content and frequency of posts by a tiny minority of Twitter’s users. I also discussed this a little in “Twitter’s growth conundrum”: https://muckhacker.com/the-twitter-growth-conundrum-8339eda162a4 https://muckhacker.com/the-twitter-growth-conundrum-8339eda1...
- sandworm101 7y agoIf twitter is bad now, imagine the horror if the silent 99 start speaking up. 1% is more than enough.
- tozeur 7y agoThat’s assuming the rest have the same behaviors as the 1%, which they inherently do not.
- dredmorbius 7y agoI've measured this directly several times across several sites myself. Google+'s low regular-engagement rates (0.16% of all profiles) actually starts to look more reasonable given: 1. Google created G+ profiles for EVERY Android, Gmail, and YouTube user from ~2012 - 2016 (may have been 2015), or about 3 billion accounts in all. 2. The 1% rule. I'd made that measurement in 2015, Eric Enge of (then) Stone Temple Consulting followed up with a much larger sample but the same basic methodology, to confirm and expand on my findings: https://blogs.perficientdigital.com/2015/04/14/real-numbers-for-the-activity-on-google-plus/ https://blogs.perficientdigital.com/2015/04/14/real-numbers-... When G+ was shutting down, I had the opportunity to look at data concerning its 8-million-plus Communities. The vast majority of those had at best one user. Even in the final months of the site communities were being created and removed (or deleted) at a furious rate -- thousands per day. From November 2018 - January 2019, several hundred net new communities were created. The most hyperactive communities (and posters) were almost entirely spam. There were numerous of what I considered legitimate and healthy communities, most with anywhere from a handful of members to a few thousand. More than 10k tended to peter off into noise territory quickly, and based on overall engagement, the sweet spot seemed to be somewhere in the 2k - 3k range, if some of my analysis bears out. Given the 90/9/1 rule, that would mean about 200-300 actual active users, and a dominent core group of 20-30, which seems to be where most online discussions find themselves most "real", for want of a better term. Quantity-based measures of quality can be exceedingly misleading. And based on the headline of this article alone, the impression that it's Twitter itself that is somehow unusual or remarkable in this story is quite misleading. This is a general trait of any social discussion.
- algaeontoast 7y agoPeople generally, especially in younger generations need to accept that the internet != the real world. I’ve had a number of friends on both sides of the isle fall into the internet trap of politics, existential dread and dilution. A few to the extent of developing serious mental health problems, even college educated people. It’s scary to watch this happen to people you know and love. Some might label me, but I enjoy not wasting time following the mainstream media / social media noise.
- standardUser 7y agoOn a much larger scale, nothing equals the real world because the real world is endlessly complicated. To take in the breadth and depth of human perspectives and experiences is simply impossible. This is only a problem when people fail to realize they are only seeing as tiny, unrepresentative sliver so they can adjust their reactions accordingly.
- algaeontoast 7y agoI think if more people had an elementary understanding of statistics the values you mentioned would be better understood and considered in common discourse. It’s really kind of sad.
- reaperducer 7y ago2.2% of Americans produce 97% of political tweets I guess people act the same online as they do at Thanksgiving dinner.
- Merrill 7y agoWonder what percentage of Americans produce 97% of main stream media news and commentary? Would it be over 0.2%?
- mr_toad 7y agoNot many, if these stats are accurate: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/home.htm Also, they don’t get paid all that well.
- romaaeterna 7y agoJournalism would only be improved if every journalist got off of Twitter tomorrow. It's not representative of mainstream opinion. And the artificially created and cultivated Twitter echo chamber couldn't help but warp anybody's neutrality. Unfortunately, it's still seen as the best way to drive clicks.
- blfr 7y agoJournalism is over. It doesn't matter what journalists do now. It was a by-product of mass media massive ad business which is being quickly taken over by tech companies.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y agoJournalism has turned into a sort of institutionalized shamanism, where you try to anger the attention gods, so they may flood your place with attention and clicks.
- xiphias2 7y agoThere's still very important independent journalism payed using donations that uncover the corruption that's going on in my small country (Hungary). The government took over all media, they are what's left for us, and this year was the first time that they were able to change the result of local elections.
- mycall 7y agoJournalism is not dead, it just won't make any money.
- hos234 7y agoIt's not over. Value might appear diluted because of the ever increasing noise, but people will still look to say a Dexter Filkins for signal. Where else are you going to find that kind of signal?
- jackfoxy 7y agoIt's more like the veneer of unbiased trustworthy journalism was a by-product of the mass media ad business. Journalism has reverted back to the journalism mean which was always biased, propagandizing, shoddy, and appealed to the confirmation biases of the target audiences since the 18th century. That's not to say there are not excellently written and researched articles produced today, but hey, today anyone can be a journalist.
- cheese4242 7y agoFurther reason why the "x political thing is trending on twitter" style headline that has become ubiquitous is stupid.
- mhb 7y agoAnd <1% read them?
- paulddraper 7y agoThe real number is that 10% of Twitter users [1] produce 97% of political Tweets. (I.e. this is "just" one social media site, used by a minority of Americans.) [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...
- 0xcde4c3db 7y agoAlso, it's 97% of political tweets from US adults that mentioned national politics from June 10, 2018, through June 9, 2019, not 97% of all political tweets (many of which are on behalf of organizations).
- sandworm101 7y agoAnd was it only american politics? We outside often wonder how often tweets about our politics come from american accounts.
- wil421 7y agoWe inside wonder how many of the political tweets or memes being shared are from Eastern Europe troll farms. I recently read about a Polish troll farm running “Blue lives matter” groups. The purpose was profit not propaganda like the Russian farms.
- jml7c5 7y agoI think you cited the wrong source for that. It's actually the page linked in this submission that has that statistic.
- paulddraper 7y agoThe original post says > the political tweeting habits of the [22% of the American public](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...) that uses Twitter I linked to that link, where you can see in the first graphic that in 2019, 22% of U.S. adults use Twitter. (73% YouTube, 69% Facebook, 37% Instagram).
- mac_was 7y agoThe rest is busy working, studying, raising kids or having a life...
- ANY_TRUERS_LULW 7y agoWell the 2.2% of us are disproportionately PoC and womxn who can't just "work" or "study" without harassment in the workplace, and "raise kids or have a life" without being shot in the street or convicted of crimes because of the color of our skin. Passiveness is privilege.
- aoeusnth1 7y agoI have a life, job and kids. I occasionally tweet about Andrew Yang. Not sure why that would interfere with the former.
- synt4x1k0 7y ago> Prolific political tweeters make up just 6% of all Twitter users but generate 20% of all tweets and 73% of tweets mentioning national politics. I feel like this wording is disingenuous when the methods state: > The analysis of Twitter users in this report is based on a nationally representative survey conducted from Nov. 21 to Dec. 17, 2018, among a sample of 2,791 U.S. adults ages 18 years and older who have a Twitter account and agreed to allow researchers to follow and report on that account. This study examines only the subset of respondents (N=2,427)
- bradlys 7y agoNot really a surprise - is it? I bet [small-percentage]% of Americans produce [very-large-percentage]% of tech tweets too. Same with sewing tweets. Same with porn tweets. Being very active in politics is either a career choice or a hobby. And very active in this case means talking about it. It's like knowing about celebrity gossip at this point because that's practically what it is for a lot of this stuff.
- 0xcde4c3db 7y agoThe most surprising thing to me is the split in age distribution among user base vs. overall tweeting vs. political tweeting. Users 18-49 were 73% of the user base and produced 72% of tweets, but only 27% of political tweets. Users 50+ were only 26% of the user base and produced only 28% of tweets, but 73% of political tweets.
- jariel 7y agoBoth the headline fact, and your addendum are interesting, but to me not fully surprising. I found the most surprising tidbit to be: "Tweets from users who strongly disapprove of Trump are especially prominent: This group generates 80% of all tweets from U.S. adults and 72% of tweets mentioning national politics." I didn't realise how one-sided Twitter was, but then, maybe that 'makes sense' in hindsight as well.
- blfr 7y agoI'm pretty sure this is not true. They probably just haven't captured the way younger people speak about politics because it's largely in culture wars terms, not mentions of national politicians, institutions or groups, as well as civic behaviors such as voting.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> Users 18-49 were 73% of the user base and produced 72% of tweets, but only 27% of political tweets. > Users 50+ were only 26% of the user base and produced only 28% of tweets, but 73% of political tweets. By these numbers, users 15-17 are <1% of the user base and produce 0% of political tweets. (And even more dramatically, despite being more than 0% of users, they also produce 0% of tweets.) Even after allowing for rounding, this can't possibly be correct.
- rdiddly 7y agoA cautionary tale for those who are perennially tempted to think Twitter = "the world" or that Twitter is like sooo super important and that it "matters." Granted, wishful thinking by said parties is sometimes enough to make it matter. For example a corporation that responds to customer complaints on Twitter faster than the ones that arrive in its customer-service inbox, is making Twitter matter more than it does.
- baron816 7y agoThat comes out to about 6 million people? Seems like a huge number to me.
- modeless 7y agoIf you, like me, find the non-political part of Twitter valuable, I have discovered that Twitter has built in filtering tools. It's pretty simple. Each time I see a tweet I dislike, I pick one word from it and add it to my "mute word" list. It's now filled with words like "trump", "liberal", "minister", etc, and now I see interesting technical discussions instead of political trash.
- fortran77 7y agoYes! I am on Twitter and talk to people interested in music performance, computer programming, and math. With judicious following, blocking, and filters, I rarely see anything else.
- virmundi 7y agoSerious question: what is the benefit of Twitter? I never understood it. Since you’ve found a utility niche, would you expand on the statement?
- modeless 7y agoSimilar to Hacker News for me: interesting tech articles and discussions, but with a different feel. I follow a bunch of graphics programmers and machine learning researchers. There's a lively community with a bunch of famous people participating as well as lesser known people who are really good in certain niches. Particularly in machine learning it seems like thousands of papers are published every week, impossible to sort through. I find that the few I see people talking about on Twitter are the most interesting and worthy of attention. Here's a list I made a while ago of the machine learning people I follow: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/b6dwrd/d_best_current_twitter_accounts_to_follow_for/ejjvt1t/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/b6dwrd/d_b...
- throw_m239339 7y agoMarketing, It's great for brands or anybody that has something to sell (a book, a product, an idea,...). It kind of replaced RSS for many people, expect it's a centralised tool. Unfortunately "journalists" use it way too often to make up news out of nothing, gather random photos/videos without fact checking and spread rumors and falsehoods as truth. Something like the Covington Catholic school fiasco heavily relayed by the media, based on a footage where people saw what they wanted to see, would have never happened without the viral aspect of Twitter. The irony is that Twitter ended up banning the person that spread it, but none of the Twitter verified people that called for the murder of school students.
- itronitron 7y agowhat percent of tweets are political?
- tptacek 7y agoHow could this be surprising? A small fraction of the population of America is a Twitter user in the first place.
- mrj 7y agoI grepped for "bot" on this, the source and their methodology page. Bot activity on Twitter is especially high and not at least mentioning how they accounted for that kinda voids this whole effort. It'd be very interesting to identify the political leanings of automated posts. I bet they could analyze the messages to determine bot networks. Disappointed this wasn't considered.
- yorwba 7y agoThey only looked at tweets by people who previously agreed to participate in the study, so their data cannot be used to analyze automated posts.
- buboard 7y agoIt's baffling why people think it's OK to retweet political stuff just because everyone else does it. If your profile says "data expert" or anything, why then do i get political propaganda when i follow you? At least have the decency to add "and political commentator" to your profile
- endorphone 7y agoTwitter accounts, like many other venues, are generally the person. And while the person might be known to you through one slice of their life (the part that has value to you), that doesn't deny them having other beliefs and opinions. Unless you're paying for their tweets, your opinion on what they should be limited to talking seems remarkably irrelevant. Having said that, twitter is a profoundly destructive force that is overwhelmingly people just preaching and clucking at each other's cleverness. I absolutely revile it as a platform, but I get and appreciate that it provides value for others.
- buboard 7y agoi don't buy this argument. Most prominent people go on twitter for a reason - to disseminate their work or something, the days of salad photos are over. They get something out of it.
- Bhilai 7y agoYou always have the option to unfollow or mute certain keywords.
- douglaswlance 7y agoAnd your life is much better off if you mute those people.
- baby 7y agoaligns with the 1-2% community contribution factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)
- cmrdporcupine 7y agoSo what % of Americans _read_ the political tweets?
- symplee 7y agoMuch lower than the percentage that read articles about the tweets. But nevertheless, the content finds its way.
- fnord77 7y agoin the methodology section, the said they only focussed on tweets concerning national-level politics. they don’t mention if they attempted to filter out bots or non-americansposing as Americans
- prawn 7y agoWhat percentage of TV users generate any content on television? Many people just spectate, whether it’s TV or social.
- jordache 7y agothat is a poor analogy at best. Everyone is intuitive on the amount of friction it takes to get content onto broadcast or cable TV. No one is delusional. There is relatively zero amount of friction for a twitter user to post political content to twitter. The fact that people are not posting political content, is not due to insurmountable friction.
- prawn 7y agoI thought that went without saying. My point is, why would anyone be surprised that not everyone speaks up? The fact that everyone can tweet doesn’t mean that they do. Friction of calling radio talk back is low, but I’ve never done it. Letters to the editor also.
- jordache 7y agofriction of calling a radio talk show is orders of magnitudes more than retweeting some political tweet.
- herostratus101 7y agoUnsurprising
- jpindar 7y agoA very small percentage of people write books, does that mean we'd be better off without books?
- Semiapies 7y agoYou could cross out those last three words.
- awinter-py 7y agois 13% an unusual rate for a topic? are the bulk of sports / cooking / science / art tweets also each from a 13% slice?
- SmartJerry 7y agoOnly a small share of people who use twitter actually tweet and yes a smaller share of those people tweet on a specific subject. I'm no sure how this is news. "Only a small share of U.S. adults product majority of tweets on ______." Fill in the blank.. only those interest in a topic will tweet about it.
- Cougher 7y agoTwitter is to political thought what advertising slogans are to consumer goods or soundbites are to news stories. "It's the real thing" tells us nothing meaningful about Coca Cola. "Just do it" tells us nothing meaningful about Nike sneakers. Slogans, tweets, and soundbites are designed to influence our thinking with catchy thoughts INSTEAD OF informed thought. The ability to create concise content is different than the ability to analyze and understand on a deep level; not mutually exclusive of course, but it doesn't really matter: the masses will be overwhelmingly influenced by the former rather than the latter.