Slashdot Mirror


Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Says Follower Count is Meaningless

In a fireside chat in New Delhi, India, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said Monday the "follower count" metric on the social platform is meaningless. Talking in front of a live audience, the Twitter co-founder said it was probably unwise to include and emphasize on the follower count on his social network, a move he said the company did not realize while implementing it back in the day. "Back then, we were not really thinking about all the dynamics that could ensue afterwards," he said.

"One of the things we did was we had people follow each other -- so you can be a follower of someone," Dorsey said, explaining the thinking that went into carving some of the core features of Twitter. The company listed the number of people you had, and "made the font size a little bit bigger than everything else on the page. We did not really think much about it and moved on to the next problem to solve. What that has done is we put all the emphasis, not intending to, on that number of how many people follow me. So if that number is big and bold, what do people want to do with it? They want to make it go up."

"So when you open Twitter and you see that number is five. It is actually incentivizing you to increase that number. That may have been right 12 years ago, but I don't think it is right today. I don't think that's the number you should be focused on. I think what is more important is the number of meaningful conversations you're having on the platform. How many times do you receive a reply?"

Dorsey's remarks comes as he has publicly acknowledged that the company is rethinking about some of the core features of Twitter. late last month, a report claimed that Twitter was also thinking about discontinuing the "likes" feature -- Twitter neither confirmed nor denied it. On Monday, Dorsey reaffirmed that focusing on number of likes and retweets is not healthy.

Dorsey is not the only Twitter co-founder who has, of late, shown disdain for the follower count. Last week, Ev Williams expressed a similar sentiment. "I think showing follower counts was probably ultimately detrimental. It really put in your face that the game was popularity," he said at a conference.

58 comments

  1. Wait... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what the hell have I been paying the click-farms for?!

    1. Re:Wait... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When President Trump has 55.6M followers and Hillary Clinton has 23.6M followers, then followers don't matter.

      If the numbers were reversed, they would matter.

      Clear?

    2. Re:Wait... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump pays for followers. It seems like you might be in the old-man's demented cult.

    3. Re: Wait... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incel still feels bad no one cares about his special gamergate archive of all his flagged tweets calling him pathetic.

      incel is angry. Incel no have warm secret fuzzy heart.

    4. Re:Wait... what?! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      President Trump has 55.6M followers and Hillary Clinton has 23.6M followers

      Barack Obama has 103M followers, so apparently size does matter. Size of the number of twitter followers, I mean.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: Wait... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And every time they purge bots from Twitter, Obama loses between 4% and 7% of his followers.

      Trump loses 1.1% on average.

      As is typical, leftists are not authentic. Everything from their rhetorical attacks to their Twitter follower counts are dishonest and in bad faith.

    6. Re: Wait... what?! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And every time they purge bots from Twitter, Obama loses between 4% and 7% of his followers.

      Do you have some link for this that isn't infowars?

      According to twitteraudit.com, the percentage of real followers to fake followers for the two men is within a few points of each other..

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Wait... what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mass banning of fake Twitter accounts earlier this year caused Trump to lose 300k followers (0.58%), while Obama lost 2mill (2%), and Hillary lost 120k (0.53%).

      Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/13/technology/twitter-purge-fake-followers.html

  2. Everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Winning opinion wars is all social media is about nowadays, and having a higher number of echoing shitheads is what makes you win.

    1. Re:Everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      *End Communication*

  3. Really? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    It really put in your face that the game was popularity,

    Oh, really?

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Really? by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Oh, that was absolutely the game alright, but you have to keep in mind who the "users" and "product" are when applied to Twitter, or any other social media platform. By making that number front and centre they basically incentivised their product to encourage more product to join the platform so Twitter would become a more appealling platform for their actual users, the advertisers. Now that their product is starting to lose faith in traditional social media platforms of course Twitter wants to make it all about the quality. And, to be clear, we're talking about the quality of how well they understand their product's interactions with other elements of the product and their shared likes for targetted advertising, not the quality of tweets. Frankly, I think this is a calculated move by Dorsey, aimed squarely at the marketing companies and Wall Street; "never mind the width; feel the quality... and *please* keep the money coming!"

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  4. Fireside chat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they burned him

    1. Re:Fireside chat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes Mo. Of course they did.

  5. And this is why I avoid all that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That arrogant way they talk about their sheeple. Quite disgusting. I don't want to be treated that way.

  6. Bullshiiiiiiiiii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now the number of followers is meaningless, you should focus on the number of meaningful discussions you can have on the platform...are we talking of the same platform full of bots, trolls and kid in their mom's basement? How many meaningful discussions you can have on Internet? Two in a month? Pleeeeaseeee mister Dorsey.

  7. Of course it doesn't matter by bobstreo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You need more numbers to indicate:

    Bot Followers

    Paid Followers

    Creepy stalkers

    1. Re:Of course it doesn't matter by Johnberg · · Score: 1

      Also, the number of followers that like what you have to say (@FredRogers), and the number of followers who call you an idiot for anything you say (@POTUS)

  8. Dorsey is just telegraphing he wants more control by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    He obviously doesn't like the idea of users taking their numbers to advertisers and cutting a deal directly with them, instead of twitter grabbing every red cent that comes out of the platform. He also probably doesn't like the idea of having the fact he suspends the accounts of people with millions of followers continuously thrown in his face.

    Expect this to be eliminated or subtly fudged, maybe a new number like "Validated Followers", something mostly useless for people to negotiate with.

  9. Reputation Society by mrwireless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think he's right. Increasingly our society is becoming a reputation society where the digitital mediation of behaviour and social interaction allows our social capital to be quantified.

    A similar example would be the "snapstreaks" on Snapchat. This is basically quantifying how good friendships are, and it's causing a lot of stress in teenagers.

    Digital technology allows social pressure to be designed on a hitherto unknown scale. The Stasi was a beta-test. China embraces this with its social credit system. We should not let our culture slide in the same direction.

    1. Re:Reputation Society by Kiuas · · Score: 2

      Digital technology allows social pressure to be designed on a hitherto unknown scale. The Stasi was a beta-test. China embraces this with its social credit system. We should not let our culture slide in the same direction.

      China is doing this with a clear intent to track its citizens and to silence any possible dissent. In the west the trends are molded by large corporations that are doing this for profit. The more addictive and socially pressuring you make the platforms, the more time on site user spend which then translates to more ad revenue. Also people who're slightly angry tend to be more engaged and hence pay more attention to ads, which is why the way 'filter bubbles' work is by mostly surrounding the user with content they agree with, but occasionally throwing in content they don't agree with, which is likely to provoke the user and make him react in some way (comment, like, dislike, share the post with a friend) which again, increases time on site and ad-revenue.

      There's very little regulation of any of this. Western countries have long since recognized that advertising itself needs to be regulated so that people are not deceived by outright false claims and BS, but when it comes to the design of the platforms and their business models, it's a wild west environment. Thing to realize is that the platforms themselves are not going to magically change their behavior. They care about money, and money only. They will keep employing psychologists and other behavioral experts to design maximally addicting Pavlovian interfaces and filter-bubbles as long as it keeps making them more and more money. They do not inherently care whether or not anything people share on the platforms is actually true, what matters is how engaging it is. It's illegal for me or anyone in the west to take up an ad claiming that my new SnakeOil UltraPro homeopathic sugarwater pills will cure cancer at 20 € a month and extend lifespans by 30 years. However, if it so happens that some clueless blogger (that may or may not be connected to the company making the pills) running an 'alternative medicine' blog where they hype this remedy as the greatest thing ever decides to advertise his/her blog post on Facebook for people interested in homeopathy and natural remedies, Facebook will happily take their money and help them spread this disinformation, because the way laws work currently is that so long as what's being advertised is the blogpost (an opinion) and not the product itself, nothing illegal is happening. Convenient, don't ya think?

      And in the meanwhile, while many rational people see this as problem, any attempt to solve this via regulations is always met with an uproar of 'look at Facebook/the government trying to censor information/free speech, this is turning into China!" The platforms don't want to interfere with content because they see that as damaging to their bottom-line (hell, the only reason Alex Jones was eventually banned is because of the threats he made and the legal departments of the companies probably decided that the amount of money he's bringing in is not worth the risk of a potential lawsuit), and the governments are unwilling or incapable of deciding what kind of regulation should be put in place to control the behavior of these platforms, because they're both clueless of the way tech works and afraid of the political downfall ('My opponent wants to decide what YOU see on Facebook, whereas I will never touch your social media feed!' etc) so the trends are just allowed to continue and amplify.

      Whether we like it or not (and I don't) the fact of the matter is that social media platforms have become the primary channel of information delivery especially for young people and yet they remain massively more unregulated than any traditional media outlets. This is a problem, and one that the companies will not fix on their own because its currently massively beneficial for them. Comedy central did a very good skit about this where they equated

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    2. Re:Reputation Society by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Why not? We can completely eliminate the right wingers, something Twitter has a good head start on doing. Imagine an America where the debate is not right vs. left, but where the debate is left vs. fat left. Basically San Francisco but nationwide. Think of the amazing positive changes that would occur.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Reputation Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine an America where the debate is not right vs. left, but where the debate is left vs. fat left.

      Truth in typo.

      One quibble is that they nuked the ordinary left first, all of those people who believe in free speech and fighting corruption, before they started going after conservatives. Of course they called all of those ordinary leftists "alt right."

    4. Re:Reputation Society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should not let our culture slide in the same direction.

      But we know that it will, In fact, we really are there, with the DHS keeping tabs, and the 'no-fly list', your credit agencies, and they all want in on your social media bullshit.

      So, with that in mind, what's next? How do we defeat it, and can we without a major bloodletting? I kinda doubt it, we're still primitive tribal savages with a very thin, and most frail veneer, destroyed by a single raindrop. *cough*.. Yeah, okay, let's put a lid on that.

  10. Re:Dorsey is just telegraphing he wants more contr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they get rid of it for users, you better believe that Twitter itself will continue to track it, since it's an advertising platform.

    Or maybe a 'value add' for the Kardashians of the world will be to make them pay to find out what their follower count is.

  11. Remove it then by dromgodis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said Monday the "follower count" metric on the social platform is meaningless.

    Well, he if anybody should be able to have it removed then.

    Then we will see if it really is meaningless to others than himself.

    1. Re:Remove it then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which of course it isn't. He and his team knew exactly what they were doing in making that little game.

  12. That's It in a Nutshell by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    Jack can say what he wants about the "meaningless" follower count; it still means more than the arbitrary (and partisan) "verified" blue checkmark.

    More generally, I can see why Jack, who's made so many partisan and unpopular moves (and no doubt has plans to make plenty more), would downplay the idea of popularity in this way.

  13. Jack Dorsey: Clickbait and Trolling is the Future by sonoronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Frightening. Jack just equated "meaningful conversation" with "what statements provoke the most responses". Welcome to the future of Twiiter, where clickbait and trolling is considered "meaningful" simply because they provoke the most responses.

  14. Lol by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    What the heck is Twitter for if not popularity?

    1. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the heck is Twitter for?
      I have never been able to work that out.

  15. doesn't matter by sad_ · · Score: 1

    whatever figure you use to indicate something, will be played and abused.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  16. What again is the purpose of twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Never understood why people so frantically use twitter. I can understand why companies are on it, as companies will be anywhere they see potential buyers or can efficiently communicate with customers. But why in the world would anybody be on it as a private citizen?

    1. Re:What again is the purpose of twitter? by johnsie · · Score: 1

      Some people require a toilet because they are full of chit. That's the purpose of twitter, and in many ways facebook and instagram. Their lives have no meaning, so they use a site that has no topic.

  17. Why stop there by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why stop there? The whole of twitter is meaningless.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Why stop there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how else am I supposed to see pictures of what my friends are eating ?

  18. Re:Jack Dorsey: Clickbait and Trolling is the Futu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thus making Trump the most meaningful person on Twitter.

    Guess he got something right for once. *duck*

  19. Seems there are those who noticed.. by 3seas · · Score: 1

    massive drops in their followers. Elon Musk is one. So what to expect of Twitters response. Its a feature not a problem!.

    1. Re:Seems there are those who noticed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, Musk seems to be tweeting on https://twitter.com/elonmusk?lang=en

  20. Huh? by coofercat · · Score: 1

    How will I measure my self-worth now?

  21. This is nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meaningful conversations?

    Don't they ban people for having the wrong opinions? Or asking the wrong questions?

    And the follower count wasn't implemented for no reason, it's a competitive element. They certainly didn't do that by accident.

    Guy sounds like a chronic liar

  22. Re: Dorsey is just telegraphing he wants more cont by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would actually make a lot of sense. You could use this excuse to validate shutting down those whom you don't think should have a voice, which aligns with Twitter's actions

  23. Twitter - Propaganda Outlet for Trump by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    When a company's most visible user is allowed a platform to launch hate attacks against both groups of people an individuals, there is indeed a problem.

    Are their people doing meaningful things with Twitter, that far outweigh the damage done by the twitter president using twitter as his main propaganda outlet?

    What would Trump do, if twitter either banded him, or if twitter had to close their doors, because half of all subscribers, unsubscribed, just like I did?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Twitter - Propaganda Outlet for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Twitter banned trump they would be instantly irrelevant.

      "banded"

      You need more ESL courses, Zwang.

    2. Re:Twitter - Propaganda Outlet for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it. "Hate attacks". Which means saying anything that goes against your marxist progressive cancer of an agenda. Gotcha.

  24. Re:Jack Dorsey: Clickbait and Trolling is the Futu by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Frightening. Jack just equated "meaningful conversation" with "what statements provoke the most responses". Welcome to the future of Twiiter, where clickbait and trolling is considered "meaningful" simply because they provoke the most responses.

    I believe that has been Twitter's modus since day one. Having meaningful conversation within Twitter's system simply doesn't happen.

    Although it is a great place to commit career suicide.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  25. Re:Jack Dorsey: Clickbait and Trolling is the Futu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Frightening.

    Jack just equated "meaningful conversation" with "what statements provoke the most responses".

    Welcome to the future of Twiiter, where clickbait and trolling is considered "meaningful" simply because they provoke the most responses.

    That is what Twitter is today. All public Internet forums are this way, /. included. Everything funded by ad impressions is this way, and every popularity contest runs this way, including /. comments.

    Baby bear mauled by banana slug
    You will not believe these ten things about Rick Astley
    Muslims building super mega mosque on 9/11 site
    Apple restricts commands in Terminal app
    Mouse and keyboard voted worst input devices for PC gaming

  26. Re:Jack Dorsey: Clickbait and Trolling is the Futu by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

    I don't think clickbait and trolling is even twitter's biggest problem. No, the original 140 character limit made having a meaningful conversation so difficult most people weren't even going to bother and even after they increased it to a slightly less meaning-restricting 260 the culture was already set.

    As much as Dorsey may talk about how what matters are the meaningful conversations, the reality is that it's always been a narcissistic point scoring game where what really matters is your popularity, which is measured in your follower count. To fix this would require some massive changes that would then in turn alienate most of their users, so fixing it is basically a Catch 22. Do nothing and it continues to be one of the most toxic places on the internet, but fix it and you're going to lose a lot of your users because it's ceased to be the toxic snakepit they enjoyed.

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
  27. trwitter is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nothing more than a communist anti-Trump hate farm. All right wing commentary has been purged. It's just a place for NPC's to pat each other on the back and pretend they matter!

    1. Re: trwitter is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will believe a conservative when I see one accept evidence it does not agree with.

      We get that you are angry. Prepare to be angrier. You aint seen nothing yet incel.

    2. Re: trwitter is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wat?

      You are literally incoherent.

  28. This why trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ran for office too. Consequences indeed.

  29. Advertisers want engagement by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's why every Youtube video ask you to comment on the video now. It tells the Advertisers you were paying attention to the content and therefor were more likely to notice the adverts. Otherwise you might have just scrolled right past their ads, or worse if you're a paid "influencer" folks might be ignoring you.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  30. However... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

    he'll get back to us on banning the neo-Nazis. I mean, one thing at a time, seriously, you guys.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  31. the only way to fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is to shutdown twitter. It really doesn't matter what metric he considers meaningless or meaningful, the simple truth is that any metric is going to be gamed because social media is nothing more than a popularity contest in order to validate some egos. Kill the likes, even the follower count, it wont make a difference because if you provide any number to use as a metric there will be people who compete to have the higher number.

    Unfortunately he experiences the cognitive dissidence that would allow him to understand such things as that understanding would completely destroy the revenue stream that keeps him in mansions and allows him the ability to produce sound bites like this.

  32. The best thing that could happen by Bobrick · · Score: 1

    ... is for social networks like this to hide follower/fan counts. Show it only to the owner of the account, make the world a better place.

  33. And we believe Jack because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the guy who said no one needs more than 140 chars or something like that?

    Hasn't Twitter abundantly demonstrated that to be completely false?