|
| ▲ | culi an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Over 85% of the US is not on twitter. It's not at all comparable to television. |
| |
| ▲ | hedora an hour ago | parent [-] | | Only 36% pays for cable TV. Seems pretty comparable to me. https://www.cablecompare.com/blog/us-cable-subscriber-statis... | | |
| ▲ | culi 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | If anyone's curious, 98.4% of US households had television in the mid 90s (most likely the peak). In 1960 it was 90%. | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And I would wager that the numbers are still very similar. One doesn't need to pay for cable TV to watch TV these days. |
| |
| ▲ | Catloafdev 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That's a higher percentage of the population than those who voted for the winning candidate in the last presidential election. I wouldn't say that's comparable to ~15%. | |
| ▲ | numpad0 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Over 60% uses Twitter in Japan, behind only to LINE and YouTube. Also comparable if English was not language of business. | |
| ▲ | vel0city 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a pretty radical difference between the statements "I don't have cable" and "I don't even own a TV". I know lots of people who spend an immensely unhealthy amount of time in front of TVs (even me from time to time, not judging), and few of them have a cable subscription. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nozzlegear an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This seems really out of touch tbh. |
|
| ▲ | afavour an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Surely not. Twitter is a niche social networking site. It’s something like 1/6 the active user base of Facebook, which would be the better comparison. |
|
| ▲ | happytoexplain an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not even close. Any given social network is not ubiquitous, socially. |
|
| ▲ | seattle_spring an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not really. More like the modern equivalent of "I don't watch Fox News." |
| |
