"For most people, Twitter feels lonely." Photo: Twitter (edited).
Show Hide image

Are you one of Twitter's millions of ghost users? This could be why

Over two thirds of Twitter users are inactive. Could a swathe of new features bring them back to life? 

An 8,500-word piece on the future of Twitter did the rounds on Twitter last week. In it, Chris Sacca, venture capitalist and major, er, Twitter investor, listed ways the site could lift itself out of its financial trough, and begin building up users again. 

If you think this is already starting to sound like an inpenetrable story about a site trapped in its own bubble, you're not alone. Twitter, founded in 2006, now has somewhere in the region of 250 million active accounts - this is the figure Twitter execs will quote if you ask about their engagement levels. But they're far less likely to mention the fact that there are actually one billion registered users on the site.

Over two-thirds of the platform, therefore, is a desert, populated by silent voyeurs and faceless eggs. Over 40 per cent of accounts have never tweeted. This ocean of tumbleweed is, needless to say, far from Twitter's original vision of open, democratised discussion and community.

Somewhere buried in Sacca's thousands of words (don't worry, we'll only be looking at 21 of them here) is a pretty astute list of the site's major failings. Here it is:

1.  For most people, Twitter is too hard to use.

2.  For most people, Tweeting is scary.

3.  For most people, Twitter feels lonely.

The key phrase here is, as you might have guessed, "for most people". Twitter's problem is that its core users - a tiny minority, and mainly working in the media - use Twitter all the time, and have few problems with its format; while most users don't engage at all. Casual users, who might log on once a day, clearly see little for them in the site's fast-moving timelines and lack of curation. 

These three problems may have, in turn, led to Twitter's stalling user growth, and its failure to match its valuation after going public (the company also lost around $600m over the last four quarters). And it could well be a recognition of them which has led the company to start altering its simple premise over the past few years. 

This month, change has shifted up a gear. CEO Dick Costolo announced this week that he will step down on 1 July, while more key changes to direct messaging and the way users can manage blocked accounts have also been announced. All tie in with one or more of Sacca's criticisms above. 

First, DMs. While Sacca doesn't tackle this feature in his post, it seems that from Twitter's point of view, messaging represents a key way to engage less confident users. This is largely because public tweets are hard to write, and can be scary to release into the world. They require practice in stuffing thoughts into a character limit, plus confidence that you've nailed the platform's tone. Their ephemeral nature - zipping past on well-populated timelines within seconds - means new users are unlikely to get kickback in the form of favourites or retweets. Those without friends or colleagues on the site are, in short, likely to feel like they're talking into the wind. @POTUS may be on Twitter, but he certainly isn't listening to you.

Group DMs, introduced back in January, now allow you to interact with a community on a smaller and more private scale. They remove in-jokes from others' timelines, and represent perhaps the first major ackowledgement that, as the compay noted in its release about the move“you might prefer to read (or watch) Tweets but converse about them privately”. Last week's  increase of the DM character limit to 10,000, meanwhile, will alleviate the anxiety of saying the right thing in 140 keystrokes. 

Then, of course, there's the more rational fear of being attacked for saying something in such a public forum, either with justification or without. Twitter has a troubled history of dealing with harassment and trolls, largely because it's difficult to say how involved moderators should be on a platform that sees itself as a kind of Wild West of the web, with little focus on privacy and moderation. (This attitude comes at a cost, of course - a Sunday Mirror investigation revealed that paedophile rings have used groups of of lcoked Twitter accounts to share images and messages.)

The new blocked lists feature allows communities who are targeted by specific groups of people to protect themselves en masse. Any user can export their list of blocked accounts, and others can download this directly. Third party apps, such as the "BlockBot", have attempted something similar - but, unsurprisingly, BlockBot's blocked list turned out to be motivated by its creators' ideology, and included users with no history of harassment. If you’re directly downloading an individual user's blocked list, on the other hand, you'll be fully aware that it's subjective. Of course, this new tool doesn't do much to stop trolls from harassing others, and it doesn't force them off the site. But, once again, the move emphasises the community aspect of the platform.

Twitter has suggested even more changes are afoot, including a less chronology-focused main timeline, teased with a recent "while you were away" feature. Yesterday, they announced that videos and gifs will now autoplay on the platform, moving the focus away from text-based tweets and potentially making timelines more entertaining (and, one assumes, data-guzzling).  

So less scary, difficult, and lonely - but will the measures work? It all depends on whether the company can offer inactive users enough to engage them, without annoying core users by mutating itself beyond recognition. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.

Show Hide image

Doing a Radiohead: how to disappear online

The band has performed an online Houdini in advance of its ninth album – but it’s harder than it looks. 

At the beginning of May, the band Radiohead’s web presence – well, its Twitter, Facebook, and website, at least – went offline.

Lead singer Thom Yorke has repeatedly criticised streaming, and the future of online music in general, and it's clear that his opinion fed into this month's decision to reject social media in favour of sending individual cards to the band's fans in the post. 

However, it’s also a clever publicity stunt in the run up to the rumoured release of the band's ninth album, since it plays into a growing paranoia around the lives we live online, and quite how permanent they are. In reality, though, Radiohead has done a pretty terrible job of disappearing from the internet. Its Facebook and Twitter accounts still exist, and widely available caching services actually mean you can still see Radiohead.com if you so wish. 

These are the steps you’d need to take to really disappear from the internet (and never be found).

Delete your acccounts

Radiohead may have deleted its posts on Facebook and Twitter, but its accounts – and, therefore user data – still exist on the sites. If this was a serious move away from an online presence, as opposed to a stunt, you’d want to delete your account entirely.

The site justdelete.me rates sites according to how easy they make it to delete your data. If you only hold accounts with “easy” rated sites, like Airbnb, Goodreads and Google, you’ll be able to delete your account through what justdelete.me calls a “simple process”. JustDelete.me also links you directly to the (sometimes difficult-to-find) account deletion pages.

Failing that, delete what you can

If, however, you’re a member of sites that don’t allow you to delete your account like Blogger, Couchsurfing or Wordpress, you may be stuck with your account for good. However, you should at least be able to delete posts and any biographical information on your profile.

If this bothers you, but you want to create an account with these sites, Justdelete.me also offers a “fake identity generator” which spits out fake names and other details to use in the signup process.

Go to Google

Search results are the hardest thing to erase, especially if they’re on sites which published your details without your permission. However, thanks to the European Commission “Right to be forgotten” ruling in 2014, you can now ask that certain search results be deleted using this online form.  

Ditch your smartphone

Smartphones tend to track your location and communicate with app and web servers constantly. For true privacy, you’d want to either disconnect your phone from all accounts (including iCloud or Google) or else get a basic phone which does not connect to the internet.

Give out your passwords

The artist Mark Farid decided in October 2015 to live without a digital footprint until April 2016, but was aghast when he realised quite how often our data is collected by our devices. As a result, he decided to live without bank accounts, use a phone without internet connectivity, and use an unregistered Oyster.

When I saw him speak at an event just before his off-grid experiment was due to begin, he announced that he would also be handing out the passwords to all his online accounts to the public. The kind of “bad data” which randomly hacked accounts would show would actually make him less traceable than a radio silence – a bit like how words written over other words mask them more than simply erasing them or scribbling on them would.

Accept that it probably won’t work

Even if you managed all this, the likelihood is that some of your daily activities would still leave a trace online. Most jobs require internet activity, if not an internet presence. Bank accounts are, let's face it, fairly necessary. And even Radiohead will, I’m willing to bet, reappear on the internet soon after their album arrives.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.