60k people deactivated their X accounts on average each day in one week alone(londonherald.co.uk)
londonherald.co.uk
60k people deactivated their X accounts on average each day in one week alone
https://londonherald.co.uk/users-flee-from-elon-musks-x-60000-people-deactivated-their-x-accounts-on-average-each-day-in-one-week-alone/
11 comments
That should show up in MAU and time-on-site statistics.
Which the site should be compelled to report to advertisers.
Which the site should be compelled to report to advertisers.
X does seem to report stats like this to the public.
https://x.com/XData/
Obviously there is probably a decent amount of cherry picking of the stats to report.
https://x.com/XData/
Obviously there is probably a decent amount of cherry picking of the stats to report.
I'm genuinely curious as to what if any disclosures, and possible business requirements / fraud risks, are presented by not having such disclosures for an advertising-supported business.
Virtually any significant publishing platform has a press kit detailing circulation or equivalent numbers, which are in most cases publicly available, so far as I'm aware. I'm not finding a definitive statement as to whether or not this is required in the US, though most significant publications, and now online sites, provide similar data.
The Alliance for Audited Media (AAM) seems to be the principle source of circulation data in the US, per this Pew article (2023):
"Newspapers Fact Sheet"
<https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...>
That also notes however:
[T]hree of the highest-circulation daily papers in the U.S. – The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post – have in recent years not fully reported their digital circulation to AAM.
Virtually any significant publishing platform has a press kit detailing circulation or equivalent numbers, which are in most cases publicly available, so far as I'm aware. I'm not finding a definitive statement as to whether or not this is required in the US, though most significant publications, and now online sites, provide similar data.
The Alliance for Audited Media (AAM) seems to be the principle source of circulation data in the US, per this Pew article (2023):
"Newspapers Fact Sheet"
<https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...>
That also notes however:
[T]hree of the highest-circulation daily papers in the U.S. – The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post – have in recent years not fully reported their digital circulation to AAM.
Most advertisers care about what ROI they'd get for their particular business.
And the easiest way to determine that is with a test campaign of just a few hundred dollars. Most platforms even give you "free credits" to do exactly that (in many businesses, a few hundred dollars can be a big barrier, because the employee doesn't want to put it on their personal credit card, yet getting the paperwork in place to go through the accounts department is a lot of work).
That means the platform-wide stats don't really matter. What matters is how cheaply the platform can get the right ads in front of the right eyeballs who will click through and buy a product.
How well the platform can attribute purchases is a big part of it too. Thats why people like youtube have "Which of these companies have you heard of? A. Amazon, B. Gucci, C. Flambaths" surveys - because that's their way to measure (and charge for!) brand adverts which don't lead to direct sales.
And the easiest way to determine that is with a test campaign of just a few hundred dollars. Most platforms even give you "free credits" to do exactly that (in many businesses, a few hundred dollars can be a big barrier, because the employee doesn't want to put it on their personal credit card, yet getting the paperwork in place to go through the accounts department is a lot of work).
That means the platform-wide stats don't really matter. What matters is how cheaply the platform can get the right ads in front of the right eyeballs who will click through and buy a product.
How well the platform can attribute purchases is a big part of it too. Thats why people like youtube have "Which of these companies have you heard of? A. Amazon, B. Gucci, C. Flambaths" surveys - because that's their way to measure (and charge for!) brand adverts which don't lead to direct sales.
It looks like the posting stopped in 2019, so Twitter posted stats. X never has.
If you aren't logged in, the other of posts on someone's profile is randomized. That account shows posts from today for me.
I somehow managed to mess up 2FA in my Twitter account shortly after Elon bought it. I think it was around when some 2FA options were only available to paid accounts. I was trying to delete it, so I decided the account was pretty well locked and just left it.
Yes, I gave up all of my accounts, but keep them online.
I would have deactivated my Twitter account long ago if it didn’t make the username free to use. I don’t want someone to impersonate me on Twitter.
Some of my issues with X.
- The algorithm is extremely aggressive and antagonistic. Any signal (linger, view) on a post indicates you might want to see more of whatever it is. Usually it is posts that provoke the most reaction.
- Posts with links are automatically down-ranked.
- I've been seeing some of the most inexplicably offensive ads.
X has been a good way to find my news blindspots. Unfortunately it seems to be taking a hard right lean lately.
- The algorithm is extremely aggressive and antagonistic. Any signal (linger, view) on a post indicates you might want to see more of whatever it is. Usually it is posts that provoke the most reaction.
- Posts with links are automatically down-ranked.
- I've been seeing some of the most inexplicably offensive ads.
X has been a good way to find my news blindspots. Unfortunately it seems to be taking a hard right lean lately.
Twitter, Mastodon, Bluesky - I left them all after deciding that doom scrolling through any infinite app makes me feel like I'm stewing in someone else's kettle of advertainment slop.
I read HN only because the content doesn't refresh too quickly and the comment threads are generally higher quality than tech posts on Reddit. Otherwise, substacks and email lists are doing it for me lately.
I read HN only because the content doesn't refresh too quickly and the comment threads are generally higher quality than tech posts on Reddit. Otherwise, substacks and email lists are doing it for me lately.
If you're curious where the data comes from, it's from a FT report that used this as the source: https://www.similarweb.com/blog/insights/social-media-news/b...
X, as a platform, is absolutely cooked. I'm sure it will remain around the same way Truth social is around. A small group of right wing folks will hang out there and argue to their last breath that it's more free speech or something, but increasingly having an X account will be seen as kind of a weird trait.
It'll make for some interesting stories a decade from now when we'll all reminisce about "remember how Musk fucked Twitter? Oh shit, is it still running?"
It'll make for some interesting stories a decade from now when we'll all reminisce about "remember how Musk fucked Twitter? Oh shit, is it still running?"
mrangle(2)
60,000/600,000,000
Few things I despise more than an absolute number provided with no context. Is 60K a lot? A little? The usual? How much does it deviate from the norm?
Indeed. And on a site with 611 Million monthly active users, that means 0.01% are deactivating their accounts each day. 3% after a year. Sounds insiginificant to me.
How are they counting deactivation's?
My account got nuked because I changed my birthday date for jokes and it locked me out for being 'too young' when I signed up way back in 2007. I would have needed to provide photos of government ID to re-activate so I let it go.
My account got nuked because I changed my birthday date for jokes and it locked me out for being 'too young' when I signed up way back in 2007. I would have needed to provide photos of government ID to re-activate so I let it go.
I think you've overlooked something: people can leave a social media site without deactivating their account. I haven't used Digg or Slashdot in at least a decade, for example, but never got rid of my accounts. I've also got a few alt Reddit accounts that I haven't logged into in a long time.
I'd expect in general the number of people who leave a site but don't bother to actually go through the steps of deactivating the account to be quite a bit higher than the number that do deactivate.
I'd expect in general the number of people who leave a site but don't bother to actually go through the steps of deactivating the account to be quite a bit higher than the number that do deactivate.
611 million active user IDs. There's a lot of bots, and spammers with multiple user IDs.
I'd be interested in seeing something about user IDs that scroll some minimum amount vs user IDs that just post.
I'd be interested in seeing something about user IDs that scroll some minimum amount vs user IDs that just post.
Agreed. "For one week, an average of 60K per day left the platform." So... 420K that week (feels appropriate, lol). That's a bit under 0.1%. With 600M reported users, X can do this every day for 27 years.
But I'm betting this week was an outlier for some reason or another.
But I'm betting this week was an outlier for some reason or another.
I believe that the appropriate response isn't to get upset about it, but to chalk it up to another article meant to mislead in the avalanche that are printed daily. I mean not only is the number meaningless without the context of relative deviation, as you point out, but new signups aren't addressed either. The article is clickbait in total.
[deleted]
I always hated twitter, but I have to say I started using it in the last month or so.
It's the only social network that feels unfiltered and not the typical politically correct crap.
I can understand left wing people leaving the platform and they account for half of the population so the numbers make sense.
It's the only social network that feels unfiltered and not the typical politically correct crap.
I can understand left wing people leaving the platform and they account for half of the population so the numbers make sense.
I saw your comment and was interested in understanding why someone would want to create a Twitter/X account nowadays. Thanks for helping me understand.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=woke+author:jokethrowaway&type...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=abortion+author:jokethrowaway&...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=woke+author:jokethrowaway&type...
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=abortion+author:jokethrowaway&...
There's not much more a person can do for freedom than to cowardly run once people, who don't agree with you, get to open their mouth without being banned.
I deleted my account because it wasn't fun anymore. It turned from sharing cool stuff and being able to connect with random famous people to politicized garbage. There's still cool stuff, but there's also plenty of cool stuff elsewhere (The Internet is a big place).
If I wanted replies to my posts to be the most offensive thing the person could think of just for the keks I would just go to 4chan where at least it's more creative.
You can call it running away but it's not out of fear, it's because the quality of discussion dropped to nothing. It didn't used to be that bad when a post broke containment. I've had great discussions on HN with people who disagree with me on very fundamental issues on political topics and I would describe it as polite and informative.
You can call it running away but it's not out of fear, it's because the quality of discussion dropped to nothing. It didn't used to be that bad when a post broke containment. I've had great discussions on HN with people who disagree with me on very fundamental issues on political topics and I would describe it as polite and informative.
Low quality responses aren't a part of a discussion: they're simply to be ignored. This is part and parcel for the internet, everywhere and for everyone. Unless one chooses not to ignore them, but that's their specific choice to participate.
Where exactly is there "quality of discussion", if we include low quality responses in that rating, in any political space that isn't siloed? It doesn't exist today, and if the space is siloed then it also doesn't exist by definition.
It's okay to want to go where people agree with you more, even if it's because others aren't allowed in. But call it what it is, and note what it isn't.
Where exactly is there "quality of discussion", if we include low quality responses in that rating, in any political space that isn't siloed? It doesn't exist today, and if the space is siloed then it also doesn't exist by definition.
It's okay to want to go where people agree with you more, even if it's because others aren't allowed in. But call it what it is, and note what it isn't.
> Low quality responses aren't a part of a discussion: they're simply to be ignored. This is part and parcel for the internet, everywhere and for everyone.
Cool. Twitter has made this much more difficult, by (a) embracing a pay-for-attention model, where bluetick replies, which are rarely worth looking at, are artificially promoted and (b) by making mass-blocking far more difficult (through the death of the API). So, people are sensibly going to Bluesky, which provides a better product, with sensible, choosable reply prioritisation, and a first-party blocklist system.
Like a big part of what's going on here is that Twitter is a way worse product than it used to be, while on the other hand better competing products exist in a way that they did not before. It's pretty natural under those circumstances that people go from the bad product to the good product. This is, broadly, how most dead social networks have died, both those which actively made themselves worse (livejournal, Digg, Tumblr), and those which were merely overtaken (Friendster, Myspace, Slashdot).
Cool. Twitter has made this much more difficult, by (a) embracing a pay-for-attention model, where bluetick replies, which are rarely worth looking at, are artificially promoted and (b) by making mass-blocking far more difficult (through the death of the API). So, people are sensibly going to Bluesky, which provides a better product, with sensible, choosable reply prioritisation, and a first-party blocklist system.
Like a big part of what's going on here is that Twitter is a way worse product than it used to be, while on the other hand better competing products exist in a way that they did not before. It's pretty natural under those circumstances that people go from the bad product to the good product. This is, broadly, how most dead social networks have died, both those which actively made themselves worse (livejournal, Digg, Tumblr), and those which were merely overtaken (Friendster, Myspace, Slashdot).
It's not difficult to ignore people. There are still a lot of (bluecheck) Leftists on X, and people successfully practice ignoring their version of terrible posting just as much as can be done in the other direction.
Looking forward to monitoring the "death of twitter" and the victory of bluesky.
Looking forward to monitoring the "death of twitter" and the victory of bluesky.
The way that Twitter currently ranks replies, all the top replies will be from blueticks, and thus generally low-quality nonsense or outright spam (a lot of people seem to be using it for self-promotion, which is perhaps unsurprising given the nature of pay-for-attention). For a post with any significant engagement, this makes ignoring them a lot of work. Many people may find a platform where this isn't a thing attractive.
Like, Twitter is clearly _worse_ with promotion of bluetick replies than it was without it; I don't think that's really controversial. That gives platforms which do not do that an advantage. Do I think Twitter is outright unusable in its current state? No, though it's getting there. But it's certainly way more _unpleasant_ to use than it used to be, and increasingly viable alternatives exist, so it's unclear to me why you'd expect people to bother using Twitter.
Like, Twitter is clearly _worse_ with promotion of bluetick replies than it was without it; I don't think that's really controversial. That gives platforms which do not do that an advantage. Do I think Twitter is outright unusable in its current state? No, though it's getting there. But it's certainly way more _unpleasant_ to use than it used to be, and increasingly viable alternatives exist, so it's unclear to me why you'd expect people to bother using Twitter.
Lots of people will variously find any one platform unusable, at any given point. That you and others find X unusable isn't remarkable.
For every person that mirrors your sentiment, there is someone who doesn't. And then the same would hold for your opinion about the relative usability of other platforms.
It's unclear to me why you'd expect "people" (in quotes bc using that word to encompass everyone is strange in this context) to not use X and to be more approving of other platforms.
Last, its unlikely that any platform that primarily exists as a response to another platform will ever have a primary use as anything else. For example, Bluesky's future is likely only to be as a protest platform contra X. This is its identity that it will have difficulty shedding.
For every person that mirrors your sentiment, there is someone who doesn't. And then the same would hold for your opinion about the relative usability of other platforms.
It's unclear to me why you'd expect "people" (in quotes bc using that word to encompass everyone is strange in this context) to not use X and to be more approving of other platforms.
Last, its unlikely that any platform that primarily exists as a response to another platform will ever have a primary use as anything else. For example, Bluesky's future is likely only to be as a protest platform contra X. This is its identity that it will have difficulty shedding.
I'd be shocked to see a leftist still on Twitter, tbh. I'm sure there are plenty of Liberals, but I doubt there are many Leftists.
There are masses of Leftists on X. Recently all seemingly intent on placing themselves on all manner of watchlist via psychotically celebrating and supporting the murder of a CEO, utilizing the logic of people with actual brain damage.
I'm sure that Bluesky was having a normal one!
I'm sure that Bluesky was having a normal one!
One has to be terminally online if they A care about twitter, B think it has anything to do with "freedom"
Why? There's no free speech environment if it lacks spaces that upset you for existing. X's existence in the name of "freedom", even if you disagree with the characterization, in turn protects your free speech. In fact, nothing else really does.
People should touch some grass instead of debating if insulting groups of people online is what the founding fathers meant by freedom of speech, or if it actually brings anything of value to society. Twitter is still censoring a lot of shit, it just changed side and now that it's yours it's "freedom"
btw freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere to begin with. Even in the self proclaimed "land of the free" you can't swear on public tv lmao, libel, slander, obscenity, fraud, &c. are all illegal. Meanwhile nobody talks about freedom of press even though the US ranks closer to Hungary than western europe, so much for freedom of speech...
Reminder that twitter is a bubble in the internet, which itself also is a bubble, and that real life exists out there.
btw freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere to begin with. Even in the self proclaimed "land of the free" you can't swear on public tv lmao, libel, slander, obscenity, fraud, &c. are all illegal. Meanwhile nobody talks about freedom of press even though the US ranks closer to Hungary than western europe, so much for freedom of speech...
Reminder that twitter is a bubble in the internet, which itself also is a bubble, and that real life exists out there.
I deleted my account to avoid my valuable "intellectual property" residing in the hands of a single, apparently quite capricious, person.
I hate to break it to you, but your "intellectual property", in terms of social media has always been in the hands of capricious people.
It's not cowardly to leave your abusers. It is a very bold act. People decided they were tired of abusive Twitter users, and so they left.
Eh? No-one is running. People are leaving a thing which has become shit. Like, if a local restaurant starts giving people food poisoning and people stop going there, you don't say people are running away from the restaurant, you say that they're no longer going there because it is bad.
"You cowards! Come back! We've got multiple drug resistant e coli on special this week!"
"You cowards! Come back! We've got multiple drug resistant e coli on special this week!"
I am not sharing a platform with people who want me dead.
At least 1 to 10 is my guess.