The New Silent Majority: People Who Don't Tweet (axios.com) 128
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Axios, written by Erica Pandey and Mike Allen: The rising power and prominence of the nation's loudest, meanest voices obscures what most of us personally experience: Most people are sane and generous -- and too busy to tweet. It turns out, you're right. We dug into the data and found that, in fact, most Americans are friendly, donate time or money, and would help you shovel your snow. They are busy, normal and mostly silent. These aren't the people with big Twitter followings or cable-news contracts -- and they don't try to pick fights at school board meetings. So the people who get the clicks and the coverage distort our true reality.
Three stats we find reassuring:
1. 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
2. On an average weeknight in January, just 1% of U.S. adults watched primetime Fox News (2.2 million). 0.5% tuned into MSNBC (1.15 million).
3. Nearly three times more Americans (56%) donated to charities during the pandemic than typically give money to politicians and parties (21%). The report also highlights a Gallup 2021 poll, showing that 42% of Americans identified as independents.
Three stats we find reassuring:
1. 75% of people in the U.S. never tweet.
2. On an average weeknight in January, just 1% of U.S. adults watched primetime Fox News (2.2 million). 0.5% tuned into MSNBC (1.15 million).
3. Nearly three times more Americans (56%) donated to charities during the pandemic than typically give money to politicians and parties (21%). The report also highlights a Gallup 2021 poll, showing that 42% of Americans identified as independents.
Who cares if you don't vote (Score:2)
In politics a "silent majority" are people who vote but don't talk to pollsters. Pollsters can easily account for that effect, but it's much harder to account for voter suppression because it's not supposed to exist. We're all supposed to pretend it doesn't happen.
Stalin was wrong, you don't need to count the votes, just make it so ha
Re: (Score:2)
But voting doesn't matter, because America is an oligarchy. [newyorker.com]
As Mark Twain said, "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
Re: (Score:2)
Mark Twain was a humorist. Even with a two-party system dominated by some millionaires, there is still a lot of difference between the two approaches, there is a great advantage in being able to alternate these approaches, and and there is a world of difference between that and not being able to vote at all. You can go through a list of countries where people can't vote, compare to whatever flawed democracies we have in the Western world, and see which systems allow more changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most democracies (or at least the ones you ought to be comparing yourselves to) have multiple parties, and many have proportional voting of some kind and also coalition governments which are always more representative.
As long as you tell yourself there are only two options, and one of them is "not being able to vote at all" you'll
Re: (Score:2)
You are being uselessly pedantic in using as an argument that North Korea has elections. They can't choose the national leadership. This is the kind of countries where indeed the sentence from Mark Twain applies. Contrary to that, US and other western countries have elections that have an impact. There are large differences between successive Presidents, Prime Ministers or Chancellors, and they have given different successive orientations to their countries.
Advocating elections are worthless based on a humo
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating American elections with the rest of the West, and the comparison is a poor one, because almost all other Western democracies have actual choice in parties, but America does not. Your system is terrible and in dire new of reform.
I suspect what you're going to get instead is a successful repeat of what happened on January 6th 2021.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has multiple parties. They tend to shape the politics of the main parties.
Saying other parliamentary systems is somehow better is ignoring the truth of the matter. In the parliamentary system, the parties have to give up some of their platform in order to form a coalition and government. It's really no different in the end.
How this is superior escapes me. All it does is lallow some to think they are voting for what they cannot get. It's seems a bit dishonest if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
So, could a... let's call it wing... of the Republican party ally with a... wing... of the Democrat party and make a government? There should be people in both parties agreeing to some common things, why can't they unite in a coalition government?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are lots of things they can agree on. Actually, I'm sure there are quite a lot of things they agree on but differ in approaches to address it.
Bur seriously. If the consequences of an election is what everyone agrees on, what makes the difference between two parties, 50 parties, or 1 party? The minority parties will always suffer the tyranny of the majority parties and at best have a chance to influence the politics of the majority. It's no different in reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Bur seriously. If the consequences of an election is what everyone agrees on, what makes the difference between two parties, 50 parties, or 1 party? The minority parties will always suffer the tyranny of the majority parties and at best have a chance to influence the politics of the majority. It's no different in reality.
I'll bite...
Let's say you're a single issue voter (as many in the US are). For the sake of this argument, you're a voter that believes firmly, above all other political issues, that cannabis should be legal for recreational use (yes, there are people like that). In the current US system, you have to actively research your parties (or, even more specifically, your candidates) to figure out who is going to be voting in your favor for your primary issue. Most voters don't care enough to do that much leg wor
Re: (Score:2)
All you are getting is a feel good vote. But it is no different than the current two party system. At best, the third party can hope to influence another party's politics. When the democrats cater to fring elements or the right caters to religious elements, it isn't because they are benevolent and ultruistic. It is because they need or want the vote thst comes with it. They will support enough cross politics in order to not lose other support.
I get what you I u are trying to say. It's just not different f
Re: (Score:2)
How this is superior escapes me.
Of course it does.
The US has two parties and always has had, and if you think your "minor parties" have any influence over anything I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
I already own two bridges. I don't really need another.
And yes, third parties do instill changes in major parties. What happens is they attract enough voters that the major parties either lose an election and need to change to attract them back or they know there is a pool of untapped voters they need to win and adjust to attract them. The smarter third parties directly challenge thr status quo in primary elections and influence from inside the major party.
And no, it is no different than a parliamentary sy
Re: (Score:2)
What happens is they attract enough voters that the major parties either lose an election and need to change ...
In America? When?
Re: (Score:2)
The New Yorker is really only arguably right about that at the Federal level though.
I've said for years that if you want to have real impact with your vote, you have to focus on the local level first, and your state/region secondarily. The Federal elections are probably where your vote is worth the absolute least and where you're voting for individuals who spend most of their time on "bigger picture" issues that don't directly affect you much anyway.
When you're talking local politics, you very well might be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"They had things, levels of voting that if youâ(TM)d ever agreed to it, youâ(TM)d never have a Republican elected in this country again," Trump said during an appearance on Fox & Friends.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republican-party-voting-reform-coronavirus [theguardian.com]
Probably the single most honest thing he's ever said.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, let the majority decide things and then the minority party would indeed find it hard to win, UNLESS they adapted. In this country's history, we've mostly had only two viable parties, with the occasional upstart that never lasts long, and during that history the two parties tend to adapt shift stances to or away from the center until there's a roughly similar split. They do tend to want more voters and thus will not lock out the big center of the bell curve, because otherwise they end up as one of
Re: (Score:2)
with the occasional upstart that never lasts long
Not true. The Federalist Party was replaced by the Whigs. The Whigs were replaced by the upstart Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the main reason the US devolves into a two party system is because most jurisdictions and most voters really only have the most basic understanding of how voting works. One of the biggest problem is the idea that every voter should get one vote to cast for one candidate in each race. The problem with that system is that it works absolutely perfectly to express the will of the voters... when there are exactly two candidates. For any greater number of candidates it flips around to just about the worst
Re: (Score:2)
The US devolves into a two-party system because a first-past-the-post election system always devolves into a two-party system.
The only way around it is a proportional-representation system (e.g. a parliamentary house with at least one body's seats apportioned by percentage of the national or regional vote), but that has its own problems in the "kingmaker" issue. All you have to do is look at the violent racial supremacist nutjobs of the "Orthodox Religious" settler-movement parties who propped up Netanyah
Re: (Score:2)
All systems form coalitions. In America the coalitions of strange bedfellows is done at the primary stage and at party conventions. So both major parties are a stange witches brew of groups that don't like each other. Then once the primary is done they all act united and put up a good front. Usually in the past the candidates lean away from the center during the primaries but lean towards the center during the general election. In a parliamentary style those coalitions occur after the general election
Re: (Score:2)
But it's winner-takes-all that messes it up really. And even ranked choice voting doesn't fix that as there's always one winner only. So it doesn't matter if Bush won by 3 bots and Gore came in second, and absolutely is irrelevant how many votes Nader and Buchanan got, because only one gets to be president.
But president is an odd example here, let's just consider number of legislators from the great state of New Milton Keynes which gets 16 seats in congress. If the state is roughly split 1/4 Republican, 1
Re: (Score:2)
But it's winner-takes-all that messes it up really. And even ranked choice voting doesn't fix that as there's always one winner only. So it doesn't matter if Bush won by 3 bots and Gore came in second, and absolutely is irrelevant how many votes Nader and Buchanan got, because only one gets to be president.
Winner take all is an inherent part of the one vote for one candidate per race system I was talking about, and, as I said, when it comes to representing the will over the voters, the spoiler effect probably hurts the most, but there are other issues with basically all other single pass systems (such as ranked choice) as well. It seems like we pretty much agree on this. To properly represent the will of the voters you really need a multi-pass system so that, among other things, the final winner is guaranteed
Re: (Score:2)
I think the only way to allow more than two viable parties is essentially to have more than one winner. Anything else will lead towards a de-facto 2 party system. How you get more than one winner is the hard part, with lots of solutions having been tried.
Now this doens't mean roughly equal distributions. But it would be nice if a party supported by 10% of the population got some say in the legislature and a chance to have a seat at the table, and that a 10% party was not looked upon as as a sack of nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the only way to allow more than two viable parties is essentially to have more than one winner. Anything else will lead towards a de-facto 2 party system. How you get more than one winner is the hard part, with lots of solutions having been tried.
That's what multi-pass voting systems do: allow more than one winner. Then you do another pass to narrow it down and repeat until you have one winner. Since the voters know that their vote will actually still count if they vote for a "third party" a lot more people will vote their conscience rather than compromising on the lesser evil.
Now this doens't mean roughly equal distributions. But it would be nice if a party supported by 10% of the population got some say in the legislature and a chance to have a seat at the table, and that a 10% party was not looked upon as as a sack of nuts. Because in many countries that 10% party is often viable and is not just a bunch of kooks.
See, this is a bit of a problem though. There are 10% "parties" that actually are sacks of nuts. What they do in the current system is compromise with one particular party tha
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if we had something akin to ranked voting, most democrats wouldn't be elected either. A truly representative voting system would likely land most votes down the middle. Maybe one person in my set of friends and extended family is everything 'trump', the rest, while still republican in policy are very much not pro-trump and never will.
In fact I'm pretty sure they were mostly 'not-hillary' votes. Both parties presented the extreme candidate. No one was comfortable voting 3rd party because of the '
Re: (Score:2)
No one was comfortable voting 3rd party because of the 'wasted vote' fallacy. And that problem is solvable with ranked voting.
It can't be a fallacy if it's true.
Due to the way the Electoral College is implemented in the US*, unless that third party candidate takes the plurality of votes in the state, their vote doesn't really matter for this election specifically. That said, if their candidate gets past a certain threshold (I don't recall what it is off hand), their party will receive campaign funding from the federal government (which already has coffers for the 2-parties in power, go figure).
As such, I don't consider it a falla
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with ranked voting is that you can't declare a winner the night of the election (in most cases). It is bad enough when the current system fails to produce a clear winner the night of the election. Imagine what it would be like with a ranked vote. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should have actually linked to that start of that video instead of jumping to the section you did. If you watch the whole clip you will see that Biden was talking about state legislatures that were making new laws that didn't regulate who could vote but regulated who counted the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
In politics a "silent majority" are people who vote but don't talk to pollsters. Pollsters can easily account for that effect...
Correct, but poll response is becoming a very big issue, [fivethirtyeight.com] as the "silent majority" is becoming extremely large, and more difficult to correct for. Some people blame the decline of landline telephones.
This article is talking about what Nate Silver calls the "Very Online Crowd". [twitter.com] It's a pretty standard selection bias, [wikipedia.org] and why serious polls aren't conducted on Twitter.
TFA isn't really news for anyone that studies polling (other than the stupid headline).
Re:Who cares if you don't vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct, but poll response is becoming a very big issue, [fivethirtyeight.com] as the "silent majority" is becoming extremely large, and more difficult to correct for. Some people blame the decline of landline telephones.
The decline of landline phones is probably part of it. I think the massive growth in fraud is a bit of an issue as well. Most people get so many spam phone calls, e-mails, ads, etc. that it's pretty automatic now not to trust anyone who approaches you to take a poll.
Re: (Score:2)
and if you don't vote in primary elections.
This is very important. The Tea Party (remember them?) targeting and beating incumbents in primaries is one of the major driving forces that created what we see today in the GOP. It worked, and it worked extremely well. A lot of regular voters, those who tend to be in the center, don't vote in primaries. This gives excessive sway to the folks who do, who tend to be closer to the extremes in whatever party.
Re: (Score:3)
As a right leaning libertarian that lives in California, I'm a registered Democrat. My rational is that whoever the republicans pick for my district will be "okay-ish" and I then use my primary vote to get the most moderate Democrat.
Ideally I would prefer a center-right Republican that is not for Trump. I'll take a center left Democrat and also be happy. Hard to find either but they do exist.
If I lived in a very red state I'd register Republican instead. The primaries are much more interesting then the fina
Re: (Score:2)
As a right leaning libertarian that lives in California, I'm a registered Democrat. My rational is that whoever the republicans pick for my district will be "okay-ish" and I then use my primary vote to get the most moderate Democrat.
Ideally I would prefer a center-right Republican that is not for Trump. I'll take a center left Democrat and also be happy. Hard to find either but they do exist.
If I lived in a very red state I'd register Republican instead. The primaries are much more interesting then the finals.
I would mod you up if I had mod points. As a voter you should really optimize the influence of your vote instead of blindly voting on whoever you agree the most with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives, as defined today, didn't exist back then;
(a) yes they did, (b) your fallacy is "no true scotsman." [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
And yes, the parties did in fact switch sides, and the Republican (Repugnant Klan) party did in fact welcome the southern white-supremacists in with open arms. It is, quite literally, the Atwater strategy that Nixon, Reagan, and every republican since Nixon has run on. [thenation.com] And it's why the likes of Marjorie Treason Greene, Lauren "KKK Barbie" Boebert, and Paul "Inbred Cross Burner" Gosar feel co
Re: (Score:2)
When questioned by a CBS reporter about why she spoke at a conference with white supremacist ties, Greene said she was unaware of Fuentes’ views. When she was told Fuentes was a white supremacist, said she did not endorse those views.
And if you believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you. The republican party allows the likes of Green, Gosar and Boebert to remain within it. They choose to openly associate with people on the level of KKK or neonazi views.
"When you have 11
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...In politics a "silent majority" are people who vote but don't talk to pollsters.
It's actually a quote from Richard Nixon; he was saying that protests and demonstrations did not represent the majority of Americans, and the "majority" were supporting him, just not making noise about it.
Re: (Score:2)
>Pollsters can easily account for that effect,
speaking as a statistics professor . . .
"easily" is quite an overstatement. "partially mitigate" is more like it.
There are some known and persistent issues that don't change by huge amounts rapidly. But in the last couple of elections, *that* seems to be changing, too.
You can use increasingly sophisticated means to try to offset, for smaller and smaller gains, but that doesn't change the fact that you're still stuck trying to use data from the last time to
Re: (Score:2)
This!
I lived for 30 years in Cobb County, GA, adjacent to Fulton County and not far from Dekalb County and Gwinnett County. In Cobb County, I never ever had a problem voting, never on Election Day nor on any early voting days. I've done both. Year after year, we would see huge lines in Fulton, Dekalb, Gwinnett and be told it was because of racist voter supression, can't have black people voting and all that. But the black people I was in line with in Cobb never seemed to have problems voting. But I could ne
What percentage despise the idea of Twitter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who thinks the very notion of Twitter is harmful? It's always struck me as "a means to shout short soundbites back and forth."
Re: What percentage despise the idea of Twitter? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing that most people don't get about the internet in general and social media specifically, is that it gave a global forum to the dudes who write angry letters to the government under a naked lightbulb. Pre-internet, those guys were just kooks who everyone ignored. But now, they're mistaken for people who have something meaningful to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter destroys the idea of nuance and detail. The exact things that are needed when having any rational discussion. You can't have honest, ethical discussion of medical science in 160 characters - but any crank and kook can shout "vAccINe bAd! iT gAve maI KiD AurTIzm!!!" despite it being nowhere close to true.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like we need an anti-Twitter social network that won’t accept posts below Twitter’s 280 character limit, that asks “are you sure?” if it recognizes you’re about to say something inflammatory, that holds every post for a minute while giving you an “undo” button so you can take back that post before anyone else sees it, that limits you to one post every X minutes, and that, most controversially, requires all people to sign up using a verifiable, real identity.
Re: (Score:2)
Social media is where you find out that all your friends and family are crazy.
And so are you.
Re: What percentage despise the idea of Twitter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's little more than a way to focus mob ire. Good example of why direct democracy is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You said it. I have plenty of time to tweet, but why bother?
If you have something to say that can be said with 280 characters, you have nothing to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's mostly resharing soundbites. If there was popularity in long form well thought out and researched social media, most users would still only be resharing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything about Twitter strikes me as cancer, I've never downloaded the app or made an account and I never will. There's everything to lose, and nothing to gain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse than that. Amazingly, it's now a content distribution platform, as it's come a long way from the old standard of intentionally limited text messages.
I'm an art enthusiast, and follow a number of artists. Lately, a major trend has been people deleting their art from various dedicated gallery sites across the web and moving exclusively to Twitter (and a Patreon, of course). This really pisses me off, since Twitter mostly features re-tweets from other people, making it difficult to browse the art
Re: (Score:2)
That is kind of a funny reponse "I get more views", really they are getting less views because they are cutting off users of the other site.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thinks the very notion of Twitter is harmful? It's always struck me as "a means to shout short soundbites back and forth."
I'm certain you're not the only person who thinks that... But you're still wrong.
Ironically, claiming a viewpoint is right because many people believe it is basically Twitter.
The problem with Twitter, isn't Twitter, it's people who blindly believe what they read and this has been a problem since time immemorial. Some people are too easily led, it is solely due to this fact that Murdoch has any money at all. Twitter and other forms of social media are relatively new, some people are still just figuring
I always miss out (Score:3)
Whatever is popular, I don't get into it before the fad disappears. I'm just lucky that computers and networking went from being for nerds only to being the center of modern society. Else I'd still be a basement dweller posting on an obscure tech news forum.
I agree (Score:2)
90-9-1 rule (Score:2)
Reminds me of the forum participation "rule" that 90% of people consume content/lurk/read, 9% reply, just 1% initiate/post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sounds about right to me (Score:2)
Twitter is a cesspool. Why anyone uses it is beyond me. I suppose if you want to wallow in misery and lash out and anonymous strangers then Twitter is the place to be.
Me? I've got better things to do with my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And music venues. I have a band and it’s damn near impossible to get a gig because we don’t have a gigantic following. And can’t get a gigantic following because we can’t get a gig.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
We have a bunch of practice videos on youtube, nothing I'd consider professional enough to present to people as a reason to listen to us :) Our sound guy says we're pretty good at our practice sessions and can get us gigs but right now we're down a drummer (he bailed to Florida for some reason :) ). It's been pretty hard to track one down. Been trying for the past 6 months and so far only one person has dropped by but didn't like our 'metal music', Judas Priest and Tom Petty apparently.
It's still an issue t
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a cesspool. Why anyone uses it is beyond me.
Assholes love to be around other assholes. Really, whether it's the one brain cell left far right, the Russian trolls, or the Blue haired Twitter "Reee!" Crew, it is that cesspool you speak of.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can follow people like Mel Conway (the creator of Conway's law) or Masha Gessen, or Rob Pike. I follow @Gater_Byte, which gives me a lot of info about what's going on in the security/hardware-hack community.
Of course, if you don't follow a lot of the "popular" people, twitter's recommendation engine gets really confused (I get recommendations about this zerohedge guy for reasons I don't understand), but I just ignore those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very true.
The Conversation Has Moved On (Score:2)
I'd also add that for most of us, the "conversation" that is being had on all of this media, is so far removed from what most of us experience, that they are talking about fantasy land for most intents and purposes. Hence, outrage and "Oh, those people are idiots, crazy, and we can't ever rationalize with them"
The problem is when folks take these conversations and start instill their versions of politics based on them. IE: banning books, rid America of its socialized government, civil war 2, etc...
--
If
When many end up working multiple jobs (Score:2)
Without the reality distortion field, people might start to question things a bit too much
Reassuring but... (Score:2)
It is reassuring to see not so many people are nuts. But nevertheless the US political climate is toxic, our politicians are idiots and our political discourse revolves around meaningless wedge issues. It is scary so few people can do so much damage and so many people don't have a political voice at all. There are no relays for reasonable people.
I nearly never vote. It is not apathy, it is despair.
25%?! (Score:2)
Wait... 25% of people Tweet?! That's so far above what I would have thought. Do most people even have Twitter these days?
It's almost as if... (Score:2)
Reality is being distorted and cherry-picked in order to construct a narrative purposefully designed to define any two tribes that will self-segregate into their own echo chambers.
Divided we fall, indeed. We are constantly told we are divided by race, creed, and every other distinction actually mentioned, but the real conflict is class and only the rich know their class warfare is happening. Social media was weaponized very early on.
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful on many levels.
It is interesting how many people don't see the real game. It might be more interesting looking at what different games are "real" to different groups. But, the attention paid to abortion in the US sure seems to suggest a few things.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians have incentive to divide people (and hopefully have the largest half of the division on their side) because it gets people to vote. That is why the divisions feel a bit artificial and exaggerated.
Twitter is a pile of shit (Score:2)
Twitter is a stinking pile of shit and always has been. The loud assholes you hated from school are all there, being loud assholes. Then the other reporter assholes quote them, rinse, and repeat.
Once advertisers realize twitter is shit it'll die.
Never got the point of Twitter (Score:3)
Seriously. I remember hearing about it when it was still basically just a website... I looked at it, and thought, "So, it's SMS, but on the Internet. What's the big deal?" Honestly, the other day, I was thinking about how glad I was that things like Twitter and YouTube didn't exist when I was a kid. Having a permanent record of stupid shit I did as a dumb kid following me around my entire life would be horrible. Things that may seem like a great idea when you're 15 probably won't seem quite as good when you're 40.
Re: (Score:2)
Strange (Score:2)
Whenever I open a new Twitter account they always close it within a week over "suspicious activity", and considering I only use it to NOT tweet, that shouldn't be so suspicious if everybody does it. Unless it is just an excuse to make me document who I am so they can sell my data? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine if everyone tweeted? (Score:2)
Vox populi on steroids. Twitter would probably shut down under its own weight.
Twitter users (Score:2)
If you use Twitter under your real name you are a huge loser.
If you use Twitter and have a blue checkmark you are an irredeemable loser.
Not just Twitter. Minorities ruling majorities. (Score:2)
That's how the world works in general. The majority is too busy living their productive lives while the minorities push their agendas and vote on the changes for the majority, in effect ruling the majority.
Who are these monsters? (Score:2)
They don't tweet? How can I know who to hate if they don't tell me?
There's a reason for this (Score:2)
There are no exceptions.
Most "independents" really aren't (Score:2)
The report also highlights a Gallup 2021 poll, showing that 42% of Americans identified as independents.
And many Americans think Trump won the election. Estimates [fivethirtyeight.com] are that most (~75%) of the ~40% who claim to be independent lean toward one of the two major parties. So, in reality, only about 10% are truly independent, i.e., independent enough to be the swing vote that actually casts votes for both parties over time.
75% of people in the USA... (Score:2)
... are not narcissists.
That's actually good to hear, because what else is twitter, but a personal echo-chamber, in the hope someone actually gives a damn what you are saying?
What concerns me about the rise of social media, is what it is doing to younger people - that if you don't have followers, if you don't participate, you are worthless?
It's almost like being forced into narcissism, or co-opted into it.
It's the "me me me" generation, the "selfie" generation.
The only photo worth taking and sharing, is one
Oh give me a home, where the algo's doth roam! (Score:2)
People Who Don't Tweet
In my experience, >80% of those are bots.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of a bot that doesn't tweet? If that to feed you information in another format?
Re: (Score:2)
What is the point of a bot that doesn't tweet?
Follows, views, upvotes, and retweets. Helps to create virtual engagement in areas that otherwise would not exist. You see it with a lot of corporate accounts where a multinational company will farm out a few thousand followers to help pad the stats.
I'm always surprised when businesses... (Score:2)
react in any way to some supposed outraged twitter mob; there's no evidence these imagined huge mobs with torches and pitchforks are anything more than a collection of dissaffected youths, or other activists pushing some agenda and armed with bots, but actions a business takes in response often affect (and offend) their actual customers.
My only metric for this story is my personal experiences, which are admittedly insular and limited; not only have I never Tweeted, but I don't think I personally know anybod
That's the Internet doing its thing (Score:2)
The Internet normalises unusual behaviour by magnifying it and bringing together people who share views into echo-chambers. Social media has exported this phenomenon to the whole world, but it was there in Usenet and bulletin boards when the whole user base of the Internet was miniscule.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't there a name for that "popularity contest" feedback cycle/phenomenon? (Not Famous for being famous [wikipedia.org].)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that someone is "better" because they are "popular" is overall ridiculous.
Everyone knows the one with the most cheese molds is the best.
Re: (Score:2)
Just check the charities out; the 990 forms filed with the IRS give you plenty of detail, or you can use any number of websites that drill down. It is pretty easy to find charities that spend more than 90% of donations on direct program costs/distributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous coward, of course!
Re: (Score:2)