Re: Tweet This: I Don't Care

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

Fergie's points are:

        1. It doesn't sound like something I need on top of my blog.

        2. It seems to me like I wouldn't like it if I used it.

        3. That's my (Fergie's) opinion, and as I (Fergie) am not open to
        talk about it, just venting and wasting your time if discussion
        happens.

You don't have a point as far as I was able to read, but I can blame 
English being my second language.

What I think your point were:

        1. Twitter is not a new concept.

        2. It limits you to write in 140 characters or less, which is not
        advisable.

        3. Twitter is a multi-user reality show (Truman show to be
        precise).

I find that some concepts are perfected or become useful much after 
someone invents them. Twitter made this one happen.

I answer to #2 in my points below, show it is a positive thing.

As to reality shows, if someone chooses to update me on their bathroom 
breaks, I personally dislike such usage of twitter and will not follow 
them.

Further, I misrepresented the following:

        1. Twitter is not IM, but an alternative which is less intrusive
        to me. I did not define that right.

        2. Twitter is a social community, and therefore, has its own
        rules and quirks.

What I would like you to understand is that while I don't need you to 
convert to the tweeting religion, I find it useful because:

        1. I have multi-user conversations in an on-demand way (unlike
        IRC) and P2P without pop-up intrusion (unlike IM).

        In essence, it does on-demand IM to multiple users, without the
        need to be there every second.

        2. I find that sharing news stories and items of interest is
        easier.

        3. When in conventions and conferences, sharing information
        becomes easier.

        4. I can easily see what the trends of conversation are on
        twitter, and figure out what the big items in different circles
        are, which may be of interest.

        5. If I have an idea, I share it quickly.

        6. Following world events as they happen with reports from the
        "ground" has proven extremely interesting, and inviting of open
        user participation in debate.

        7. I learn to be concise.

        8. As an anecdote, conferences now use twitter themselves to
        update on quick changes in schedule, etc.

Beyond useful, twitter is fun:
It simply is to me.

There are some points which I don't appreciate in twitter, but are not a 
deal breaker to me:

        1. It encourages, although does not dictate, a culture of
        re-tweeting rather than of writing new material (quoting others).

        2. It is not possible to follow more than 40-60 people and
        actually keep track of what they say. It's a tradeoff between how
        much time you spend on twitter every day, and how much you want
        to read. I changed my habits to reading what's in-front of me,
        and looking for what interests me.

        3. "The Swamp" of social acceptance is especially alluring on
        twitter, but that is to be expected as anywhere else. It's up to
        you who you "hang with".

        4. Manipulation of the sort of "reciprocal follows" happens all
        the time, but then twitter is used as a branding and marketing
        tool, not a fun past-time. People are not suckers for it though as
        much as at the beginning.

Funny:

        1. People can have 40K followers, but a balance of 40K people
        they follow. They are not really famous, but they promote the
        idea that it is "the right way" of tweeting.

        2. People who only follow who they want to follow (say 200 people)
        and have 40K followers are frowned upon due to the spammish
        behavior described above, even though these "rock stars" are
        actually interesting.

My "stream", as you asked me about it:

        1. I follow what's on the main page. Reading 10 pages back three
        times a day just doesn't work for me.

        2. I usually follow about 80 people. I am currently looking for
        new cool people to follow, so I am at 200. 700 people follow me,
        I usually try and limit it to 450, but I don't have as much
        control over that. I played a bit with reciprocal follows early
        on to see how spammers and big shots do it, and was disgusted.

Finally--
As a side-note, twitter started small. It reminds me of CNN when it 
started, with all the glitches that made us all feel like we were a part 
of the experience.

Today, they are big and rich, and still have technical glitches. I am 
starting to think they do them on purpose, as they have no reasonable 
explanation for them. Annoying, but happens less and less.

Positively, though, they have a very quick abuse desk, which is highly 
responsive.

To sum up:
You don't need to like twitter. You absolutely do not have to try it. And 
you do have the right to promoting a negative opinion of it without trying 
it. But you do need to stick to my arguments or introduce new ones when 
you discuss it with me. :)

        Gadi.


On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, security curmudgeon wrote:

> : > In responding to Ferg's post with two words, well below the 140 character
> : > limit, you make his point better than he did.
> :
> : Indeed?
>
> indeed.
>
> : I find it increasingly ridiculous that whenever a new medium shows up,
>
> new medium? we're talking about 'Twitter' here, yes? nothing new about the
> medium really. you have MySpace comments meets SMS text restrictions for a
> Web (1.0? 1.5? 2.0?) driven site. forcing users to post comments in under
> 140 characters is the only real difference for the web.
>
> : whether temporal or permanent, the old guard rejects it. Then it either
> : moves on like it never existed, gets replaced (succeeded) or "it has
> : always been there".
>
> the old guard tends to reject over-hyped small twists on old ideas,
> especially when they cater to the vapid masses that can't seem to say
> anything worthwhile when given 1000 words and 10 days, let alone 140
> characters and 10 seconds.
>
> count the social networking sites (which this could be classified as) that
> have come and gone. none of us remember them all i would imagine. each one
> comes, has some new small twist or set of features, many flock to it and
> before long, it's empty and people have migrated to the next new thing.
> this hopping from sinking ship to sinking ship doesn't strike me as a new
> medium most of the time.
>
> : At first, it was weird. While I appreciated a place where I could share
> : quick thougts, much like a shoutbox on blogs, it was cold and lonely.
> :
> : People you would "follow", would not follow you back, even if you knew
> : them. "What's that all about?" I'd ask. And yet, it was also fun:
>
> see, you strike on a great point that the doe-eyed masses work to forget.
> while someone may have hundreds following them on Twitter, that means that
> a million others opt NOT to follow them. there is a reason for that; even
> the most popular people, the most famous people, are still mundane if you
> turn them into the Truman show.
>
> I see value in Twitter in some cases, where people use it to receive
> specific information, like RSS for SMS where character length may matter.
> having information pushed to you in that fashion is great. knowing what
> Sally had for breakfast and what Joe's insipid thought of the moment is
> every five minutes doesn't seem that useful. further, i think that people
> feel the need to use it, to get a sense that it is valuable, and it forces
> them to have inane conversations they wouldn't otherwise have had. (i say
> this based on 'some' users, certainly not all)
>
> : What it was however, was whatever I made of it.
> :
> : 1. People who updated whenever they were off to the bathroom, or eating,
> : we boring. I didn't follow them. If a person twitted too much, she was
> : out of my stream.
>
> out of curiosity, how many people did you end up following after applying
> this criteria? this is the type of "stream" that I refer to above.
>
> : Is it good? Is it evil? I don't know and I don't care.
>
> i don't think any of us should or can rate it as 'good' or 'evil', and i
> don't think that was Ferg's point, and certainly not mine.
>
> : If blogging is good for you, keep blogging. Just don't be an old fart
> : and tell me IM is for young people because email is good `nuff. It makes
> : you not just an old fart, but a silly cranky dork.
>
> Twitter isn't "IM" to me. ICQ, AIM, YIM, Jabber, etc. are "IM". I know
> that Twitter is akin to IM and carried over a different set of protocols
> or technology, but if you consider "IM" means "Instant Message", I
> certainly don't want to get bogged down in the sad restriction that my
> message must be X characters long. Hell, i routinely see URLs that are
> more than 140 characters (another argument, and equally absurd I know).
>
> : Anyway, I thought we were just joking around, Fergie and I.
>
> Didn't come across that way, at least not after Ferg's post. If your
> response was meant to be 'twit-like', then I missed that.
>
> : If you believe I made Fergie's point for him, even though we were just
> : trading jokes, show me your argument, and why it is so. I'll keep an
> : open mind.
>
> Again, you made my argument =) You couldn't have made your argument (and
> thus mine) over Twitter. I guess I have a problem with a 'medium' that
> forbids you to even defend your position on its value or using it in the
> style that you did. it was tempting to reply to this, but only quote the
> first 140 characters, to demonstrate the point:
>
> : I find it increasingly ridiculous that whenever a new medium shows up,
> : whether temporal or permanent, the old guard rejects it. Then it
>
> yeah.. glad you used e-mail for this (seriously) =)
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.