4 ms·

This guy is basically right. Twitter isn't social; it's a PR tool. What's annoying is that you have all these "broadcasters" (bloggers, celebrities, media pers

by ryandvm 17y ago

This guy is basically right. Twitter isn't social; it's a PR tool. What's annoying is that you have all these "broadcasters" (bloggers, celebrities, media personalities) telling me how great Twitter is. And for them, the people with an audience, it is. But guess what - most people have nothing worth broadcasting about. It turns out that the average person has very average thoughts. Who knew? The other problem I have with Twitter is that it's just Twitter. It makes me cringe to hear tech luminaries talk about using Twitter as infrastructure (e.g. replacing RSS). Does nobody else mind handing over that level of power to a closed, corporate body? I'll give microblogging a serious thought when there are protocol standards and more than one provider is actually operating in the space.

roc 17y ago
Similarly with blogs, photostreams, generic web sites, etc. It can all be a PR tool. It can all be banal. It can lob grenades that spark research or discussions or the genuine (unpaid) discovery of a neat product. Twitter is what you make of it. And you can find pretty much whatever you're looking for. Though I'm definitely with you on the protocol/provider bit.
- whopa 17y ago
  "Twitter is what you make of it." If what most people make of it is banal posts and celebrity watching, is it deserving of all the hype?
  - roc 17y ago
    Again, you could say that of the internet in general. A medium is (un)deserving of 'hype' based on whether it can be used to do anything that appeals to us.
    - whopa 17y ago
      The Internet in general is not as narrowly scoped as Twitter's feature set, so that is not the same.
      - roc 17y ago
        I don't see how scope is relevant. The argument is: do interesting uses of Twitter exist? If they do, the banal is irrelevant, since you never need to see it to access those interesting uses of Twitter.
coliveira 17y ago
But I think what makes twitter interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster. Now, this is not news for people in the media, because they will just have another channel. But for everyone else it important.
- whopa 17y ago
  "Anyone can become a broadcaster" also counts for blogs, mailing lists, usenet, etc. People still have to opt in to tune into you, so why is Twitter more interesting than all those other options?
- swernli 17y ago
  From pg's essay "Hiring is Obsolete" (http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html), Have you ever noticed that when animals are let out of cages, they don't always realize at first that the door's open? Often they have to be poked with a stick to get them out. Something similar happened with blogs. People could have been publishing online in 1995, and yet blogging has only really taken off in the last couple years. In 1995 we thought only professional writers were entitled to publish their ideas, and that anyone else who did was a crank. Now publishing online is becoming so popular that everyone wants to do it, even print journalists. But blogging has not taken off recently because of any technical innovation; it just took eight years for everyone to realize the cage was open. There are quite a few web technoligies for which I could write your same sentence. What makes bulletin boards interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except that not many people were aware of bulletin boards so you didn't reach many people. What makes electronic mailing lists interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except they weren't that easier to discover and join so you didn't reach many people. What makes blogging+rss interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except it has started to get a similar air of elitism as traditional editorials so unless you have some gimmick or are already famous you don't reach many people. What makes twitter interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except the site has become so inundated with celebrities, news personalities, corporations and marketters that, like blogging, unless you have a gimmick or are already famous, you are just part of the noise and don't reach many people. Is twitter interesting? Sure. Is it revolutionary? Eh, maybe a little. But does it represent some kind of fundamental shift in how people communicate and who can broadcast to large audiences? Not in my opinion. Twitter makes some things easier, but it doesn't completely change the game. There have been any number of amazing broadcast methods coming down the pipe ever since the web came into existence. But all that broadcasting for the average man doesn't make a lick of difference if no one is paying attention.
jpeterson 17y ago
I'll give microblogging a serious thought when there are protocol standards and more than one provider is actually operating in the space. All of the open protocols are already in place for someone to trivially build a clone of twitter's basic functionality. And actually, there are a number of microblogging sites out there lying mostly derelict. The real value of twitter is not its technology, but its vibrant user activity. And you usually don't get critical user mass unless a closed system is locking them in somehow.
Tichy 17y ago
Yesterday I got to see a great Foo Fighters concert, because someone queuing for tickets twittered about it. Benefits like that are good enough for me. Twitter has been the best source for me to learn about events in my city in the last year.
marknutter 17y ago
It works really well when you only follow people you're actually interested in. Most of the people I follow (and I only follow about 60 people) are fellow developers, entrepreneurs, geeks, and IRL friends, and I get a lot of value out of the stuff they post. Twitter can of course be used as a PR tool as well, although I think there's a lot more room for abuse there. But I have about 1600 followers that I've gained over time from guest writing on blogs and putting my twitter name on apps and presentations and I can regularly get great feedback from my followers and sometimes some good business opportunities, too. Twitter only works, I guess, if you are interested in other people. A lot of detractors forget that you can control the spigot of information coming in, and that you can actually get a lot of value out of Twitter without even posting one tweet.
elblanco 17y ago
It's easy, just restrict everything you type to some arbitrary number of characters. Done.

by ryandvm 17y ago

roc 17y ago

Similarly with blogs, photostreams, generic web sites, etc. It can all be a PR tool. It can all be banal. It can lob grenades that spark research or discussions or the genuine (unpaid) discovery of a neat product. Twitter is what you make of it. And you can find pretty much whatever you're looking for. Though I'm definitely with you on the protocol/provider bit.

whopa 17y ago
"Twitter is what you make of it." If what most people make of it is banal posts and celebrity watching, is it deserving of all the hype?
- roc 17y ago
  Again, you could say that of the internet in general. A medium is (un)deserving of 'hype' based on whether it can be used to do anything that appeals to us.
  - whopa 17y ago
    The Internet in general is not as narrowly scoped as Twitter's feature set, so that is not the same.
    - roc 17y ago
      I don't see how scope is relevant. The argument is: do interesting uses of Twitter exist? If they do, the banal is irrelevant, since you never need to see it to access those interesting uses of Twitter.

coliveira 17y ago

But I think what makes twitter interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster. Now, this is not news for people in the media, because they will just have another channel. But for everyone else it important.

whopa 17y ago
"Anyone can become a broadcaster" also counts for blogs, mailing lists, usenet, etc. People still have to opt in to tune into you, so why is Twitter more interesting than all those other options?
swernli 17y ago
From pg's essay "Hiring is Obsolete" (http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hiring.html), Have you ever noticed that when animals are let out of cages, they don't always realize at first that the door's open? Often they have to be poked with a stick to get them out. Something similar happened with blogs. People could have been publishing online in 1995, and yet blogging has only really taken off in the last couple years. In 1995 we thought only professional writers were entitled to publish their ideas, and that anyone else who did was a crank. Now publishing online is becoming so popular that everyone wants to do it, even print journalists. But blogging has not taken off recently because of any technical innovation; it just took eight years for everyone to realize the cage was open. There are quite a few web technoligies for which I could write your same sentence. What makes bulletin boards interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except that not many people were aware of bulletin boards so you didn't reach many people. What makes electronic mailing lists interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except they weren't that easier to discover and join so you didn't reach many people. What makes blogging+rss interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except it has started to get a similar air of elitism as traditional editorials so unless you have some gimmick or are already famous you don't reach many people. What makes twitter interesting is that anyone can become a broadcaster, except the site has become so inundated with celebrities, news personalities, corporations and marketters that, like blogging, unless you have a gimmick or are already famous, you are just part of the noise and don't reach many people. Is twitter interesting? Sure. Is it revolutionary? Eh, maybe a little. But does it represent some kind of fundamental shift in how people communicate and who can broadcast to large audiences? Not in my opinion. Twitter makes some things easier, but it doesn't completely change the game. There have been any number of amazing broadcast methods coming down the pipe ever since the web came into existence. But all that broadcasting for the average man doesn't make a lick of difference if no one is paying attention.

jpeterson 17y ago

I'll give microblogging a serious thought when there are protocol standards and more than one provider is actually operating in the space. All of the open protocols are already in place for someone to trivially build a clone of twitter's basic functionality. And actually, there are a number of microblogging sites out there lying mostly derelict. The real value of twitter is not its technology, but its vibrant user activity. And you usually don't get critical user mass unless a closed system is locking them in somehow.

Tichy 17y ago

Yesterday I got to see a great Foo Fighters concert, because someone queuing for tickets twittered about it. Benefits like that are good enough for me. Twitter has been the best source for me to learn about events in my city in the last year.

marknutter 17y ago

It works really well when you only follow people you're actually interested in. Most of the people I follow (and I only follow about 60 people) are fellow developers, entrepreneurs, geeks, and IRL friends, and I get a lot of value out of the stuff they post. Twitter can of course be used as a PR tool as well, although I think there's a lot more room for abuse there. But I have about 1600 followers that I've gained over time from guest writing on blogs and putting my twitter name on apps and presentations and I can regularly get great feedback from my followers and sometimes some good business opportunities, too. Twitter only works, I guess, if you are interested in other people. A lot of detractors forget that you can control the spigot of information coming in, and that you can actually get a lot of value out of Twitter without even posting one tweet.

elblanco 17y ago

It's easy, just restrict everything you type to some arbitrary number of characters. Done.