This has some good examples of what can go wrong in a free-for-all environment, as well as some other just plain bad behavior. (Although the people who believed Bonsai Kitty weren't thinking.)
We have debated the pluses and minuses of requiring real names when sending messages to third parties from the 'relative' safety of your computer whilst hiding behind a cartoon avatar and a nickname.
I think many people exhibit the same behavior as they do from the 'relative' anonymity of their vehicles. Just plain meanness and selfishness and Social Networking sites need to have things in place to prevent it to be relevant.
Twitter did facilitate the Iranian protestors. And facilitated getting the word out to the world.
Twitter did help make the Kogi Korean BBQ Taco Truck a sensation!
Twitter did keep us updated about Balloon Boy in real time.
I agree that it is not a "platform" but it does provide real-time news and discussion like no other tool at this time.
Obviously, people who Tweet that they are riding the train to work don't 'get it.'
But those of us who have formed discussion groups using hashtags do.
As an example, I'm CulinaryHatchet, have a blog (that I've been neglecting while working on BHeardusa.com start-up), really into the #profood movement and have met many other very informed #profood -ies (as well as #agchat and #foodinc) on Twitter, including the son of the people from whom Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma) purchased his cow. There is great discussion in #profood from all sides of the issue. There are farmers, farmer's markets, attorneys, journalists, restaurants, etc. I can't think of any other resource that provides this kind of value right this second (although BHeardUSA.com will be taking it to the next level and using Twitter as one of the tools.)
Twitter did facilitate the Iranian protestors. And facilitated getting the word out to the world. Twitter did help make the Kogi Korean BBQ Taco Truck a sensation! Twitter did keep us updated about Balloon Boy in real time.
Do you have any substantial proof of those claims? I know for a fact the first one is at least misleading (Every news outlet had people on the ground in Iran and they certainly reached far more people than Twitter did).
The point of the article is that people who use Twitter ascribe accomplishments to it without proof so you making the same claims without offering proof only makes the author's point.
Notice that, in my post, I reworded the 1st claim to say that it "facilitated" the protesters. (Are you sure that you read my "claims" carefully?) It was a real-time messaging service that the government wasn't able to shut down as easily as cell service that spread the word about what was going on and there is plenty of proof out there. Furthermore, one could argue that the Twitterers counted as "news outlets" supplying information not otherwise easily uncovered. It's like having a free workforce. (Of course, with a lot of Twitterers, you get what you pay for.) You may offer proof that this wasn't the case if you choose.
Secondly, lot's of people have blogged that they love the Kogi truck and followed it to find out when it would be arriving. Another score for real-time messaging from one-to-many. Even the editor of Bon Appetit wrote about it, How many other food trucks do you think she writes about? Major PR score!
Thirdly, the the proof is in the Tweets for all three examples. (I didn't follow balloon boy but I can picture the scenario that anyone interested could follow the balloon's path in real-time.)
Finally, I offered proof of my own claim as to it's usefulness for #profood. Tweet to them otherwise and see what they say.
What I and other posters are saying is that, even though it is a one-to-many messaging service and not a platform, it does have value and that Twitter bashing is as useless as a submarine with screen doors.
> Even the editor of Bon Appetit wrote about it, How many other food trucks do you think she writes about? Major PR score!
That's probably more due to the fact that Kogi made the New York Times and the LA Times, than due to direct Twitter awareness. Kogi often has long lines now, but that pretty much started happening when it hit traditional media. The first time I went to Kogi was last December, before it hits NYTimes/LATimes, and there was no line.
Definitely Twitter helped them hit their early following, but it doesn't seem that a majority of their customers now use Twitter. Last few times I've been waiting in line for Kogi, most people I talked to around me got the word that the truck was there due to their website itself, or word of mouth from friends.
> I didn't follow balloon boy but I can picture the scenario that anyone interested could follow the balloon's path in real-time
You could have also followed it on CNN. It's funny that Balloon Boy is an example. That story was not broken on Twitter, but via traditional news channels, and all the Twitter chatter was based around updates from those same traditional news channels. Except if you tried to follow the story on Twitter, you'd have way more noise to filter through, as Twitter has a lot of redundant posts (Retweets don't add any value when you're searching).
I just did a search on Twitter for #profood. A large majority of it was RT messages. How does one find the discussion that is going on about #profood in all of this? Speaking for myself, I would find it much more efficient if there was a profood forum, blog, or even BBS. Any of these solutions would provide a signal-to-noise ratio that is manageable, and have the bonus of being intended for discussion and discourse instead of requiring users to quote one-another to get a message out.
I don't think that you can judge a real-time one to many discussion by a snapshot in time. There are frequently very good discussions taking place.
How would you suggest such a large group as #profood have real-time discussions with so many contributors on one person's blog?
You have to join forums and BBS'. How do you find out about them in the first place? Retweeting has the benefit that followers who don't know about #profood will see the messages.
For example, if you find out about Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch and follow them, you'll then find out about #profood where you'll find out about all sorts of organizations and experts who Tweet in #profood. I have met people that I would never have otherwise met and learned things that I would never have learned from one forum, blog, or BBS.
You have to use it to 'get it.'
I don't understand why non-users are so emotional about discounting it's value.
How did you find out about the #profood tag? I am assuming someone you know was either in the community, or interested in the community. This is no different from a wikipedia page referencing the community, a blog you follow pointing you at the forum, or a person you don't even know mentioning it at an event. I do not see why the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch website/blog/weekly newsletter couldn't also point you to this community.
What I am getting at is that Twitter works the same as all these things that have come before, but it is the new and the now and therefore the media darling. I do not debate that it has usefulness, but I do debate that it has impact and change beyond what already existed (in addition to imposing barriers to usability). Twitter does work as a communications platform, but that doesn't meant it is changing the world or a paradigm shift or any of the other breathless praises it has received.
Also, please do not assume I am not a Twitter user just because I dislike the service.
Obviously, people who Tweet that they are riding the train to work don't 'get it.'
Why? Because they're using Twitter to send boring, banal info that you don't care about, but perhaps their friend or spouse does?
I don't think anyone gets Twitter because there are so many ways to use it. I swore off it a while back, but then found it much more enjoyable after unfollowing about 2/3 of my list. Now, some of the ones I enjoy reading the most are the boring, banal parts of my wife's life that she experiences at work.
Twitter has allowed for a focused elucidation of a tiny concept. It bridges the gap between the line-by-line nitpick of an article and the 'so-short-it'd-be-flippant-elsewhere' single line nitpick.
It helps that this is a small twitterstorm with a bunch of seasoned professionals, but the following seems like a slightly more asynchronous IRC convo:
http://orbit.vect.org/misc/gamedesign.html
Because you haven't yet done it, perhaps? Having the small character limit really forces you how to get your message across very succinctly. How many times have you read something that could have been boiled down considerably and gotten the point across more clearly? We actually do have meaningful real-time conversations in #profood. I have rarely used two Tweets to make a point.
Having said that, many Tweets are links to #profood blogs.
Some talk about Steve Jobs's reality distortion field.
Your quote offers another example: "Having the small character limit really forces you how to get your message across very succinctly". All perfectly logical.
Do you really, really, really believe this? That a limitation at 140 characters is helps people express their thoughts better? It doesn't strike you in any way, limiting? Are there some good thoughts that need 200 characters?
Don't get me wrong: having such a limit has advantages to the readers. But if you think of it, twitter is not so different from a giant blog RSS feed which only broadcasts the titles of the posts...
> twitter is not so different from a giant blog RSS feed
I think this is precisely the point. Twitter has basically taken the idea of RSS and made it RRSS (really really simple syndication), in that non-techies can easily grasp the concept.
It's curious you should mention Apple in your post, too. Were you one of the people who said "no wifi, only 5gb space, no FM radio, it will fail" when the iPod came out?
