Based on this USA Today article (via Richard Fernandez), showing that many of Obama’s twitter followers are phony baloney, my first thought was this would be a great tactic for gun control groups to use, given their lack of any real grassroots energy. The tool can be found here. First I checked myself, and found 80% of my peeps are good, 16% are inactive, and only 4% are phony.
CSGV are 88% good, 12% inactive, and they have no fakes. This isn’t too surprising, because they have been gaining followers largely through following large numbers of people and asking for follows back, which is a legitimate tactic, and usually works.
Brady, however, is a different story. The tool lists only 20% of their users as being good. The rest of their followers, some 77%, are inactive. Only 3% are fake, but with that many inactive, it’s safe to say that CSGV probably has more engaged followers than Brady.
VPCInfo has about the same mix as I do, 79% good, 18% inactive, and 3% fake. He also has fewer followers than I do. This isn’t too surprising, because Sugarmann has been phoning it in for a few years now on the issue overall, and doesn’t really seem to have any kind of social media strategy other than being there.
NRA actually doesn’t look too great. The NRANews is 60% good, 31% inactive, and 9% fake. The NRA main feed is 54% good, 36% inactive, and 10% fake. Interesting.
I think it’s safe to say that no one in this issue seems to be buying friends. So why such appalling numbers for Brady, and even NRA’s don’t look so good? I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point Brady encouraged their followers to get on social media, and a lot did, and promptly got off. Gun owners trying Twitter, and getting frustrated or bored with it could also explain NRA’s numbers. I’ve generally found Twitter to be a bit like a garden. Every once in a while, you have to pull weeds. I’ve found TwitBlock to be a pretty good for that, but if you have a lot of followers, it can take quite a while to scan your whole list.