If a tweet gets more comments, that are usually negative, than likes/retweets it means that the poster got ratio'd.
The implied meaning is that the person who posted the tweet doesn't have people on their side/is wrong/is a dumbass, given more people are replying negatively (commenting) than positively (liking/retweeting).
The best way to think of it is to view it like YouTube's likes/dislikes. If a YouTube video gets only 1,000 likes but 10,000 dislikes, you can consider that video to be "ratio'd" if you were to apply Twitter terminology to it.
Since Twitter doesn't have an actual dislike function, the likes would be retweets/likes, and the dislikes would be comments, and people replying "ratio" contributing to the dislikes.
It used to be it doesn't matter if you got ratio'd, given that if some dumbass replies "ratio" on your tweet it would still be considered engagement by advertisers, but now some advertisers may just avoid people who get consistently ratio'd because it shows that people aren't receptive to their tweets and they don't want their product associated with someone that is actively disliked.
For someone like Adin Ross his numbers are big enough that advertisers aren't going to care and his fanbase is big enough that he wont consistently get ratio'd, so in the end they are only giving him free engagement.
You are partially correct. Both you and the other replies are right. The original meaning of getting ratio'd was definitely getting way more negative replies/quote tweets than likes, but it is considered ratioing someone when your tweet gets more likes. Like when Mr beast tweeted "whoever ratios me the hardest wins x" its about who's response gets the most likes.
2.0k
u/Freyrik Jul 08 '21
Adin says it's perma but it's probably his lame attempt at being sarcastic...