"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 comment editor at the i, and was technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman, and a staff writer at CityMetric.

Anna Leszkiewicz
Show Hide image

Why doesn't falling snow show up on your phone camera?

And while we're at it, why can't you take a good picture of the moon?

If snow falls on the ground and no one sees it on Instagram, did it really happen?

The answer to that question is a firm “No”, much to the chagrin of social media users around the United Kingdom today. There will be no flurry of Likes to accompany today’s flurry of snow, as one by one we each realise it is damned impossible to take a good picture of falling snow on our phone cameras.

 

A photo posted by Mamá 2.0 (@mama2punto0) on

The question is, why?

“All photography is dependent on light irrespective of camera type,” says Matthew Hawkins, a senior lecturer in photography at The University of the Arts, London. “Snowflakes usually fall in times of low contrast and relatively low levels of light.

“This increases the duration of exposure which becomes too long to freeze the motion of an inherently translucent flake.”

So it seems that, provided you’re not trying to shoot on a Nokia 3310, it might not actually be your phone that is the problem. In recent years phone cameras have become incredibly advanced, and the World Photography Organisation even has awards for mobile phone photos.

That said, phone cameras are obviously less advanced than expensive, professional DSLRs, and a lot of digital cameras actually have a “snow mode”, designed to help with the lighting issues that occur when photographing bright, white snow. "Snow scenes generally tend to come out underexposed, so exposure compensation (adding more stops) is usually needed and the automatic settings within a phone camera don't compensate for this," says James Jones, a freelance photographer.

Lauren Winsor, a photography lecturer at Kingston University, adds: “The shutter simply isn’t quick enough to freeze the majority of falling snow. It’s therefore either lost to near invisible motion blur or rendered as inelegant white, out of focus blobs.”

Given that your iPhone is currently trying to catch up with a theatre mode, it’s no wonder that it’s not really designed for the complexities of snow.

But if – as Hawkins says – these problems occur with fancy cameras as well as your phone, then why are your snow photos so underwhelming?

The answer to the question might actually be the answer to life’s many questions: you’re just not very good.

 

A photo posted by kayleepaterson94 (@ironcreature94) on

When I ask Lewis Bush, a photography lecturer (who is currently working on a project that uses satellite imagery for another perspective on the refugee crisis), why it’s so hard to capture a good picture of falling snow, he says it’s isn’t “if you know how”.

Multiple online guides have sprung up to help you get this knowledge, and Paul Moore, of iphonephotographyschool.com offers eight tips for the perfect wintery photo. “Depending on the light and the weather, snow can take on different color hues or even end up a dull gray color,” he writes, advising that it can instead be fixed in editing. A simple black and white filter or a photo editing app can change everything.

And while you’re here, what about nature’s other trickiest photography subject, the humble moon? Bush has advice for any amateur phone photographers looking to capture the big cheese. “The moon is hard, so shoot with manual exposure controls if your phone has them, you could also try using telephoto adaptors that clip on to your phone camera or even borrowing a telescope and shooting through it,” he says.

But if the snow continues to fall and you can't afford a swanky camera, what on earth should you do next?

“Shoot towards something dark,” says Bush. “White snow isn’t like to appear very well on a white background, and use a flash if it’s dark.

“Also, maybe question whether the world really needs more photographs of snow?”

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.