I had to do this for work a few years ago. It took a while to find the data, but when I did (IIRC) it was estimated about 20% of the population was registered with Twitter, and about 5% of the registered users accounted for something like 90% of the content. So, less than 1 in 5 are registered. And a small fraction of that does almost al…
I had to do this for work a few years ago. It took a while to find the data, but when I did (IIRC) it was estimated about 20% of the population was registered with Twitter, and about 5% of the registered users accounted for something like 90% of the content. So, less than 1 in 5 are registered. And a small fraction of that does almost all the "talking." It's also worth noting how weird this is. It shouldn't be hard to find this info, nor should it be difficult for the company to know the number of registered and active users vs bots. This is very different from other sites, which can provide this info very transparently in order to inform advertisers. (This level of murkiness is a clue, IMO, that it's not what we were told it is.)
Here's how I see it. Twitter was the "populist" arm of the liberal establishment's propaganda apparatus. It's how they manufactured the illusions of consensus and consent of the people. The covid and trans insanities would never have happened without the influence of Twitter posing as the "voice of the people." Of course, it wasn't actually the voice of the people. It was the voice of the liberal elite and their paid activists. IMO, it wasn't a coincidence the logo was a blue bird (as in: fly, rise up, liberal people of the world!) and verification was a hierarchically-designated blue check mark (as in: vote blue!).
Now that the "liberal" policies are failing the powers-that-be and they need to change direction, the establishment is taking a hard-right turn. And X is going to be the "populist" arm of the conservative establishment's propaganda apparatus. IMO, it's not a coincidence that Musk was allowed to buy this platform - without significant lawfare - and then renamed it and opened it up to "conservative" voices. And rebranded it with more masculine, militaristic-looking logo and color scheme (as in: X marks the spot, the target). Probably also not a coincidence that Musk is a MiC contractor. (It will be interesting to see if they allow Tucker to stay or if they try to rein him in in some way. Keep your enemies close?)
Either way, I just don't see Twitter/X as anything other than a propaganda tool. Who/What is allowed to stay on it, who/what gets amplified, etc. seems to serve a purpose. Despite branding itself as such, it's not an open market of ideas. There's clearly curation, false/manufactured voices, phony "likes," and bias being applied. Being "liked" or disliked is an extremely powerful social control tool.
Good points. I’ve never used Twitter myself. Seems like it’s a waste of time, or worse. As you mention - propaganda. Not a good use of our energy. Same goes for Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, and all the rest.
I had to do this for work a few years ago. It took a while to find the data, but when I did (IIRC) it was estimated about 20% of the population was registered with Twitter, and about 5% of the registered users accounted for something like 90% of the content. So, less than 1 in 5 are registered. And a small fraction of that does almost all the "talking." It's also worth noting how weird this is. It shouldn't be hard to find this info, nor should it be difficult for the company to know the number of registered and active users vs bots. This is very different from other sites, which can provide this info very transparently in order to inform advertisers. (This level of murkiness is a clue, IMO, that it's not what we were told it is.)
Here's how I see it. Twitter was the "populist" arm of the liberal establishment's propaganda apparatus. It's how they manufactured the illusions of consensus and consent of the people. The covid and trans insanities would never have happened without the influence of Twitter posing as the "voice of the people." Of course, it wasn't actually the voice of the people. It was the voice of the liberal elite and their paid activists. IMO, it wasn't a coincidence the logo was a blue bird (as in: fly, rise up, liberal people of the world!) and verification was a hierarchically-designated blue check mark (as in: vote blue!).
Now that the "liberal" policies are failing the powers-that-be and they need to change direction, the establishment is taking a hard-right turn. And X is going to be the "populist" arm of the conservative establishment's propaganda apparatus. IMO, it's not a coincidence that Musk was allowed to buy this platform - without significant lawfare - and then renamed it and opened it up to "conservative" voices. And rebranded it with more masculine, militaristic-looking logo and color scheme (as in: X marks the spot, the target). Probably also not a coincidence that Musk is a MiC contractor. (It will be interesting to see if they allow Tucker to stay or if they try to rein him in in some way. Keep your enemies close?)
Either way, I just don't see Twitter/X as anything other than a propaganda tool. Who/What is allowed to stay on it, who/what gets amplified, etc. seems to serve a purpose. Despite branding itself as such, it's not an open market of ideas. There's clearly curation, false/manufactured voices, phony "likes," and bias being applied. Being "liked" or disliked is an extremely powerful social control tool.
Good points. I’ve never used Twitter myself. Seems like it’s a waste of time, or worse. As you mention - propaganda. Not a good use of our energy. Same goes for Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, and all the rest.