This is a minor point but I subscribe to the Bulwark at relatively high rates because I assume it has a stronger commitment to journalistic integrity than, say, the Washington Post or Fox News:
The claim that Twitter has lost "millions of users" is not supported.
The linked article's own click-bait title says only "a million users" (that…
This is a minor point but I subscribe to the Bulwark at relatively high rates because I assume it has a stronger commitment to journalistic integrity than, say, the Washington Post or Fox News:
The claim that Twitter has lost "millions of users" is not supported.
The linked article's own click-bait title says only "a million users" (that's not the same) and the actual data suggests that during Oct 27 to Nov 1 there were 877k deactivations and 497k suspensions, which is "more double the usual" (implying a regular churn in Twitter usership), with *no data* provided on number of sign-ups. So actually nothing is known from this article about total Twitter usership.
Even if you include both deactivations and suspensions together (1374k), double the usual seems to suggest only an additional *674k* deactivations or suspensions, so again not "millions." But who knows - the authors of that article were not trying to inform, just create a good headline out of a more nuanced, but incomplete MIT analysis.
tl;dr - no credible justification is cited for the claim that Twitter has "lost millions of users." A close reading of the article cited makes this clear. Maybe there is other data supporting this but I can only find more click bait.
This is a minor point but I subscribe to the Bulwark at relatively high rates because I assume it has a stronger commitment to journalistic integrity than, say, the Washington Post or Fox News:
The claim that Twitter has lost "millions of users" is not supported.
The linked article's own click-bait title says only "a million users" (that's not the same) and the actual data suggests that during Oct 27 to Nov 1 there were 877k deactivations and 497k suspensions, which is "more double the usual" (implying a regular churn in Twitter usership), with *no data* provided on number of sign-ups. So actually nothing is known from this article about total Twitter usership.
Even if you include both deactivations and suspensions together (1374k), double the usual seems to suggest only an additional *674k* deactivations or suspensions, so again not "millions." But who knows - the authors of that article were not trying to inform, just create a good headline out of a more nuanced, but incomplete MIT analysis.
tl;dr - no credible justification is cited for the claim that Twitter has "lost millions of users." A close reading of the article cited makes this clear. Maybe there is other data supporting this but I can only find more click bait.