3 ms·

> There isn't that much of a reason for a more normal user with a few hundred followers (maybe) to engage on it other than interact with more prominent users I

> There isn't that much of a reason for a more normal user with a few hundred followers (maybe) to engage on it other than interact with more prominent users I think you've misjudged the value of Twitter for a normal user. In my experience as one of these "normal" users, Twitter's major use case is like Facebook before the "adults" (older people) and extended family showed up. You can type out whatever you want, and your Twitter buddies will see it (often a different circle than your Facebook friends). Because messages are so short, interaction is much easier. Discussions take place in 140 characters rather than paragraphs. Sure, it's less deep than Facebook, but it's also satisfyingly immediate. It's also a lot more possible to make new friends over Twitter than Facebook. It's relatively normal to interact with people you've never met before, whereas on FB that'd be a big faux pas outside of a post in a common-interest group. All the brand stuff? Powerful users and influence and news? Not super relevant for a pretty decent swath of users (although it is pretty funny when I subtweet a utilities company or something when I'm having an issue and they send me an official DM). I personally do not follow any major brands or celebrities, although occasionally I see them through retweets.

fernandotakai 10y ago
> It's also a lot more possible to make new friends over Twitter than Facebook. anecdote: i met 95% of my current friends through twitter. i also met my wife through twitter.
niftich 10y ago
> Twitter's major use case is like Facebook before the "adults" (older people) and extended family showed up. You can type out whatever you want, and your Twitter buddies will see it I'm in the twentysomething, white demographic, and in my circle of friends we used Twitter in such a way around ~2009-2011. But we've all moved on to Tumblr, Instagram, and then Snapchat. Tumblr has better discoverability of people whose content you may legitimately enjoy, and endless reblogging is encouraged and not a faux-pas, which is a great way to fill your "timeline" when you have nothing to say, or a great way to counterbalance personal posts that all implicitly solicit your friends' attention (however briefly). Instagram flips the 'attachment' and the 'tweet' into 'image' and 'caption', and people like visuals. The image either provides aesthetic gratification on its own, or it's a social icebreaker used to carry the content in its caption. Snapchat is used the same way, with the added benefit that Snapchat is private one-on-one by default, friends-only on demand, whereas Instagram makes your entire timeline public or friends-only per your choice. Between these three services and the ever-present Facebook, the need for Twitter is not so great -- since we've subsumed every other usecase in a service that does it better, all that we use Twitter for is to broadcast stuff pseudonymously to the entire world, hoping it garners some likes. It usually doesn't. It's not particularly fun to shout into the ether; so Twitter doesn't even do that function well.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  I think we have different use cases, despite being in the same demographic. You speak of using Twitter "in [your] circle of friends", but I'd say about half of my "Twitter friends" (mutuals who I regularly interact with) aren't within my "friend circle." My high school circle keeps in touch with an FB group chat, and the occasional Snapchat. My college circle keeps in touch with some FB and Instagram posting. Twitter is a different beast. > Tumblr has better discoverability of people whose content you may legitimately enjoy, and endless reblogging is encouraged and not a faux-pas, which is a great way to fill your "timeline" when you have nothing to say, or a great way to counterbalance personal posts that all implicitly solicit your friends' attention (however briefly). For me, this is a negative. I don't WANT endless reblogging filling up my page. I like seeing content created by the people I follow, even if it's all personal posts, which I often enjoy more than other sorts of content. Twitter also has a real-time aspect that Tumblr does not. Many people use queues on Tumblr, which, to me, would completely defeat the purpose of having a "feed." Just let me browse individuals' queues at my own leisure. > Instagram flips the 'attachment' and the 'tweet' into 'image' and 'caption', and people like visuals. The image either provides aesthetic gratification on its own, or it's a social icebreaker used to carry the content in its caption I very rarely see people having actual conversation on Instagram. I enjoy seeing the content, but I doubt that I'd ever meet someone completely new over Instagram unless I had an OC art/photography/etc account. > Snapchat is used the same way I don't think that's true either. Instagram seems to be carefully considered and orchestrated photos, while Snapchat is quick, low quality and one-off. It's a conversational way of using images (which is clever), but it also requires more investment for each conversation. > It's not particularly fun to shout into the ether; so Twitter doesn't even do that function well. This is my main point of disagreement. I personally DO find it fun (or at least cathartic) to shout into the ether, when that ether is a loosely anonymous group of quasi-friends (with a couple actual friends tossed in there too). No other service provides this. I also like seeing the raw, real-time stream-of-thought posts. Facebook and Instagram are too curated, Tumblr is too rebloggy and non-real-time, and Snapchat is too personal/one-on-one. Anyway, hope this justification makes sense. Obviously if you don't see a use case for it, you're not under obligation to use it. I wouldn't use it either if I had a really solid local social circle, but in lieu of constant online interaction with actual friends, Twitter works well enough.

fernandotakai 10y ago

> It's also a lot more possible to make new friends over Twitter than Facebook. anecdote: i met 95% of my current friends through twitter. i also met my wife through twitter.

niftich 10y ago

> Twitter's major use case is like Facebook before the "adults" (older people) and extended family showed up. You can type out whatever you want, and your Twitter buddies will see it I'm in the twentysomething, white demographic, and in my circle of friends we used Twitter in such a way around ~2009-2011. But we've all moved on to Tumblr, Instagram, and then Snapchat. Tumblr has better discoverability of people whose content you may legitimately enjoy, and endless reblogging is encouraged and not a faux-pas, which is a great way to fill your "timeline" when you have nothing to say, or a great way to counterbalance personal posts that all implicitly solicit your friends' attention (however briefly). Instagram flips the 'attachment' and the 'tweet' into 'image' and 'caption', and people like visuals. The image either provides aesthetic gratification on its own, or it's a social icebreaker used to carry the content in its caption. Snapchat is used the same way, with the added benefit that Snapchat is private one-on-one by default, friends-only on demand, whereas Instagram makes your entire timeline public or friends-only per your choice. Between these three services and the ever-present Facebook, the need for Twitter is not so great -- since we've subsumed every other usecase in a service that does it better, all that we use Twitter for is to broadcast stuff pseudonymously to the entire world, hoping it garners some likes. It usually doesn't. It's not particularly fun to shout into the ether; so Twitter doesn't even do that function well.

Nav_Panel 10y ago
I think we have different use cases, despite being in the same demographic. You speak of using Twitter "in [your] circle of friends", but I'd say about half of my "Twitter friends" (mutuals who I regularly interact with) aren't within my "friend circle." My high school circle keeps in touch with an FB group chat, and the occasional Snapchat. My college circle keeps in touch with some FB and Instagram posting. Twitter is a different beast. > Tumblr has better discoverability of people whose content you may legitimately enjoy, and endless reblogging is encouraged and not a faux-pas, which is a great way to fill your "timeline" when you have nothing to say, or a great way to counterbalance personal posts that all implicitly solicit your friends' attention (however briefly). For me, this is a negative. I don't WANT endless reblogging filling up my page. I like seeing content created by the people I follow, even if it's all personal posts, which I often enjoy more than other sorts of content. Twitter also has a real-time aspect that Tumblr does not. Many people use queues on Tumblr, which, to me, would completely defeat the purpose of having a "feed." Just let me browse individuals' queues at my own leisure. > Instagram flips the 'attachment' and the 'tweet' into 'image' and 'caption', and people like visuals. The image either provides aesthetic gratification on its own, or it's a social icebreaker used to carry the content in its caption I very rarely see people having actual conversation on Instagram. I enjoy seeing the content, but I doubt that I'd ever meet someone completely new over Instagram unless I had an OC art/photography/etc account. > Snapchat is used the same way I don't think that's true either. Instagram seems to be carefully considered and orchestrated photos, while Snapchat is quick, low quality and one-off. It's a conversational way of using images (which is clever), but it also requires more investment for each conversation. > It's not particularly fun to shout into the ether; so Twitter doesn't even do that function well. This is my main point of disagreement. I personally DO find it fun (or at least cathartic) to shout into the ether, when that ether is a loosely anonymous group of quasi-friends (with a couple actual friends tossed in there too). No other service provides this. I also like seeing the raw, real-time stream-of-thought posts. Facebook and Instagram are too curated, Tumblr is too rebloggy and non-real-time, and Snapchat is too personal/one-on-one. Anyway, hope this justification makes sense. Obviously if you don't see a use case for it, you're not under obligation to use it. I wouldn't use it either if I had a really solid local social circle, but in lieu of constant online interaction with actual friends, Twitter works well enough.