Using a Twitter account for bullying is the most certain way to kill it.

Using a Twitter account for bullying is the most certain way to kill it. Why ARE stalkers congenitally unable to create engagement ?
Publishing a selected, professional, original, positive carefully written content able to concern a large audience, supported by hashtags and mentions for creating engagements, are the keys for a successful Twitter account. A bully user, in all of its aspects, practises the opposite with poor results. We will, here, conduct the autopsy of a rabid stalking account.
This case, because it is an extreme one, allows to get numerous learnings on how a cyber delinquent can act on Twitter. It evidences the causes of its bankrupt and will, hopefully, provide some comfort for those facing such a hatred behavior.

To help in understanding the “performance” of such a malevolent use of Twitter, we will compare its results with the ones coming from the main target, my personal account @BernardGrua.

Content:

A bully account is unattractive. It results in a small & non-engaging audience.

Why bullying makes a Twitter account repulsive for an audience?

Example of main wrong practices evidenced in just a short thread.

Conclusion

Exhibit

A bully account is unattractive. It results in a small & non-engaging audience.

An impersonating “anonymous” account with a very large number of Tweets, but with few followers.

The Pakistani user, Ramla Akhtar, aka Rmala Aalam cannot be identified with her account. Since more than one year, she uses the name of one of her victim, me Bernard Grua, as her Twitter ID, in her Twitter bio and, frequently, in her Twitter name.
Since September 18, 2019, the stalker posted 9,381 tweets. This an average of 19 tweets per day during 499 days. She only has 153 followers. This represents just 25% the number of accounts she follows.

An emblematic stalker account profile on Twitter

My twitter account @BernardGrua posted, in total, 2,420 tweets. It has 154 followers for 136 followed accounts. This represents a coverage of 113% (versus 25% for @GruaAbuseArkive).

To table of content.

The few followers don’t engage (likes, replies, retweets).

The engagement score is 19%. It is below the average ratio for accounts having 150 to 175 followers

A weak engagement ratio

The account @BernardGrua has an engagement score of 82% (versus 19% for @GruaAbuseArkive)

To table of content.

Why bullying makes a Twitter account repulsive for an audience?

This second part will review the analytics produced by different free tools as of January 29, 2021. They are limited to the last 3,200 tweets created (here, since August 1, 2020). The 3,2000 figure includes Tweets which may have been deleted since. That’s why data refer to a slightly smaller number of records.

Very few tweets get interactions

Only 406 tweets from the 3,159 posted (12.8%) lead to action for @GruaAbuseArkive. That means, 87% of its twitter production is ignored. Let’s try to understand why.

The account @BernardGrua has 3,200 user actions for 2,415 tweets. This is a ratio of 132.5% (i.e. more than 10 times the 12.8% of @GruaAbuseArkive)

The stalker shares numerous retweets with no added value and “false replies”.

With retweets bringing no added-value, while they represent 45% of the stalker posts, the account shows, actually, a small original content.

Types of stalker’s posts

Replies are mandatory to create relations and a real community of users. But the stalker mostly answers to herself as it will be evidenced below. She produced long personal centered and/or stalking threads. That’s why the 28.5% replies can’t develop inter-actions with engagement.

A stalker’s account only replies to itself

The 132 real answers (to other users) only represent 4% of the total posts (3,168*28.5%*14.6%/3,168). It shows the impossibility for the bully to be part of a conversation. This misanthropic policy is the opposite of what should be social media.

To table of content.

Most of the user mentions are applied for defamation. They don’t promote engagement.

Almost 90% of mentions (red circles) concern people who will not interact.

Except for @FranceInPak (French Embassy in Pakistan) which is the addressee of calumnious denunciations and which never answers, except for @threadrearapp which automatically aggregates threads, all the other users of the bullying campaign are blocked. As a consequence, 87% of main user mentions are frozen for inter-action.

To table of content.

Hashtags diverted for defamation, doxing and calumnious denunciations don’t create inter-actions.

The proportion of stalking hashtags represent 80% of them. They don’t create engagement.

Only 19% of the most used hashtags may lead to interaction, subjet to the fact they correspond to interesting posts. This is not the case as we can see below.

To table of content.

A very low number of favorited tweets proves the “bully model” is wrong for Twitter.

The stalker account got 374 likes for 3,168 posts. Only four tweets have ten or more likes. Note that none of them refer to Akhtar complaining about her tragically staged personnal life. None of them are related to bullying. The “core business” (ranting about own life, defaming and spreading calumnious denunciations) of the stalker is just ignored by the audience.

Low number of favorited tweet. Bulying tweets are not favorited.

Actually, the “likes” for @GruaAbuseArkive might have been received for some other reasons than the actual interest of the posts. If you look at the very poor number of retweets.

The account @GruaAbuseArkive got 2,753 likes. This is 7.3 times better than the stalker’s result with 24% less tweets. The four top tweets for favorited from the account @BernardGrua have 18, 32, 33 and 40 likes. Their interest is proved by the number of retweets.

To table of content.

A dramatic low number of retweets evidences the lack of interest represented by the bully account.

The total of retweets for 3,168 posts amounts to only 31. Only four posts were shared twice. All other retweets just happened once. None of the top concerns bullying. Here too, the “core business” of the stalker is ignored.

Extremely low number of post retweeted by other users. Bullying posts are not retweeted

The account @BernardGrua got 488 retweets for 2,397 posts. This is 15.7 times better than the stalker’s account result with a tweet volume lower by 24%. Four top shared posts from the account @BernardGrua are retweeted 5, 8, 9 and 12 times.

To table of content.

Example of main wrong practices evidenced in just a short thread.

None of the users mentioned (actually the victims of the bully) can answer. The hashtags are not able to attract other users. No engagement is to be expected. It is generally recommended to republish some tweets which were successful in the past. The bully does the opposite. The stalker endless reposts, it could be several times a week, the same unattractive defamatory contents. Since September 2019, they have never been favorited or retweeted. Because they are negative. They can, even at first glance, be understood as motivated by personal animosities. Last, but not least, the tweets look trash and are not appealing.

  • The first attachment is a private conversation between the bully and one of her target before June 2019. It is not in accordance with the text of the post.
  • The second attachment is a private answer dating June 2019 after the bully dumped provocations and insults with no reply in @BernardGrua‘s mailbox during one week. It is regularly shown as an “evidence” of permanent and new threats.
  • The last attachment is a family conversation, dating 2012, stolen from the third victim phone. It is used as an “evidence” of pedophilia and rape accusations against this target.
The core business of a bully account in three posts.

To table of content.

Conclusion

Bullies use Twitter tools on an anti-social way

The bully account focuses on volume and repeated unsuccessful posts, trying to promote self centered issues or personal fights. Publications are negative, poorly written and full of dumped trash. Hashtags and mentions are diverted for harassment. They can’t help in saving the engagement for a content which brings no value for any audience. If the targets of the bully are blocked or if they decide to not answer, then the bully’s Twitter account simply kills itself.

Stalkers are congenitally unable to create engagement

Can a stalker do better than all that we observed above? It is doubtful. The emblematic stalker we autopsied has numerous recognized mental disorders. But this is not a stupid person. The delivery is a quite sophisticated, smart and consistent toxic product. It is not accessible to the normal and simple person. But, stalking is by essence an anti-social addiction or perversion. In this case it is even misanthropic. This is incompatible with, because contrary to, the essence of Social Media.

A Twitter stalking account weakness is easy to assess.

It you need an extra reassurance in a bullying victim situation, just process your twitter account and the one of your stalker thanks to Vicinitas “User tweets” box. Compare the analytics. You may be surprised on how an enraged bully is, actually, weak, isolated and desperate.

To table of content.

Read how to make a small Twitter account strong with a few efforts

  • Get retweets from other important accounts, mention them.
  • Tweet few but tweet quality and relevance.
  • Surf the trend if you can bring original content about this trend.
  • Make your audience happy.
  • Engage positively in discussions with influencers.
  • Engage only if you are able to bring value.
  • Just tweet when you know you have something really good to share.
  • Upload media directly into your Twitter posts.
  • Don’t pay attention to trolls and to stalkers. Just know they actually work for you.
  • Don’t share your personal issues, even if you are under the pressure of bad people.

Read more…

To table of content.

Exhibit

Data comparison between stalking and stalked Twitter accounts

Major figures comparison
  • The stalker has a low original production, 45% of the publications are just retweets versus 10% for the normal user.
  • The stalker uses fewer mentions (0.41 per tweet versus 2.13 for the normal user) and hashtags (0.21 per tweet versus 0.93 for the normal user).
  • “Replies” proportion in the stalker production (29%) is less than half of the one posted by the normal user (70%).
  • Less than 1% of stalker posts is retweeted versus more the 11% for the normal account (with a bigger number of times).
  • Only 7.6% of the stalker tweets are favorited versus 37.6% for the normal user (with a double number of times).
  • The normal account gets a total of 488 retweets. This is 15.7 times the 31 retweets granted to the stalker.
  • The normal account gets a total of 2,753 favorited. This is 7.4 times the 374 favorited granted to the stalker.
  • The better results of the normal account are achieved with 24% tweets less than the stalker.
Relative strength of the accounts

To table of content.

Key data for the target: @BernardGrua

To table of content.

Save this article on Pinterest

Using a Twitter account for bullying is the most certain way to kill it. Why ARE stalkers congenitally unable to create engagement ?
Pin it!

To table of content.

This article on social media

On Twitter

On Pinterest & on Flickr

Using a Twitter account for bullying is the most certain way to kill it. L

On Facebook

Published by Stop Cyberstalkers

No to Hate-Speech, abuses & violences - Website administrator

2 thoughts on “Using a Twitter account for bullying is the most certain way to kill it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: