In February 2022, Holeâs âCelebrity Skinâ raged in my head, for whatever reason; I hummed it while studying, bopped along to its jubilant chorus on the way to class. Perhaps the music industry was testing a novel telekinetic advertising channel, because when Doja Cat dropped her cover of the feisty classic for her Super Bowl cameo, I dropped everything and turned it on. The moment was built for me. I remember how Doja revealed her collaboration with Holeâs frontwoman on Twitter: she simply tagged @Courtney.
That nine-character interaction had me thinking about the power, the mystique of the standalone first name: an icon in a package. There is only one BeyoncĂ©, one Rihanna, one Elvis. There are many Courtneys, but none with the image of Courtney Love. The self-destructive bombshell. The notorious grunge widow. The poor user whoâd replied to that post, âwho's thatâ, was dragged cross-generationally, ratioed into oblivion. Whoâs Courtney? Whoâs Courtney? Who else could Courtney be?
Even for those of us who arenât celebrities, there is an allure to claiming our own first name; declaring ourselves, in our own small bubbles, as the only Emily or the only Joshua in our world. One of my friends recently realized, with dismay, that they could have rejected the auto-suggested first-initial-last-name-number identifier when signing up for a college email, and instead been [first-name]@umd.edu. When another friend let slip that they had a second friend named Caroline, I jokingly demanded they admit I was the original. The other could be Caroline2.
But a lot of the first-namers werenât just lucky early birds; they had a leg up. Twitterâs first employees, including founders Evan Williams and Noah Glass and future CEO Jack Dorsey, claimed @ev, @noah, and @jack in March 2006. (Twitterâs first public tweet was made by Dorsey, pictured below.)
just setting up my twttr
— jack (@jack) March 21, 2006
I took a list of the top 200 first names from the past century, half given to boys and half to girls, and combed the Twitter API for information on their owners on Twitter. 180 of them had active accounts (the other 20 had been disabled). Some of these accounts may have been the first to claim the name; others may have been bought, or re-claimed after the original account was deleted. Some of these accounts were engineers, designers, investors, and leaders in the tech industry; others were public figures establishing their presence on the emerging platform. And of course, we have our commoners. (My favorite is @keith with one follower, whose avatar depicts the Voltron character.)
Each account is represented below with a circle. The bigger the circle, the more followers they have. This, for example, is @jack.
Click on the circle to view more details about @jack.
@username
Followers: 0
Some of the circles will overlap.
Right click on @jack to bring @noah to the surface.
@username
Followers: 0
Below, you will see all 180 users on a timeline indicating when they created their account. The higher the circle, the more popular the name.
Click on a user to see more details.
Much of the data for this project was collected from the Twitter API in January 2023âfor instance, the display names, profile images, and follower countsâand thus represents the metrics for the included accounts at the time. In February 2023, Elon Musk paywalled the Twitter API, killing bots and other third-party apps that communicated with it. Hence the data displayed in this project is not updated live.
Profile images for all users were collected in October 2023âsome of them through manual downloadâafter I realized that the image URL retrieved in February was taken down after the user changed their profile picture.
The industries represented by included users were determined by their Twitter biography, the content of their feed, and/or searching the Internet for additional profiles matching the userâs display name (such as Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn profiles).
The interactive chart was built using D3.js. The source code and data is publicly accessible on GitHub.
While I was preparing the data, I had to use my own judgment and intuitions about the tech workforce to categorize users into professional industries. Initially I had a separate category for product designers and recruiters, but at the end of the day, the users working such jobs had careers in the tech industry. Some of my judgments were subjective: how would you categorize a journalist in the tech industry? Or someone who has followed multiple career paths?
The SSA also separated names by gender (although some names are gender-neutral; @ashleyâs name was listed under the SSAâs most popular names for girls, but the user uses he/him pronouns). The gendering prompted me to reflect on why I categorized the way I did.
Why, for example, did I not create a âBlogging & Content Creationâ category until I started researching the women in the dataset? I was perfectly content to put men in similar professions under âMedia & Press.â Eventually, I went back to review all of my âMedia & Pressâ users and moved some of them into âBlogging & Content Creationâ after realizing this category suited their work better.
At the moment, I do not have a filter for sorting the assigned âgenderâ of usernames, but if I were to add it, you would find the âfeminineâ names to be a lot more colorful. A majority of the âmasculineâ usernames belonged to tech workers and venture capitalists, but more âfeminineâ usernames belonged to artists, journalists, content creators, and private accounts.