Twitter continue to prove itself an interesting little creature. I continue to take issue with the superficiality that seems to pervade the system. It's like a "medium-is-the-message" facebook status update feature on steroids, in a way. While the chance to reply to others on the system is entertaining, it raises facebook-like issues: why do I care what x has to say to y about z? Why does that extremely low-level snippet of conversation need to be public? Why should your heavy "live-twitter" of a local event clog up my feed?
That's just the way we decided to designate which of the four of us happened to be making "the tweet" - as you can probably see, Steve S (designated by an /S) and I are the chief users, although Mike F has chimed in (as /F). So, in the case of the tweet you were referring to, that was me (the /B).
I'm still trying to get the hang of twitter myself - I've long been skeptical of it as being too shallow. I also think the term "tweet" is especially annoying - "Don't mind me, I'm just tweeting on twitter right now." It sounds inherently superficial.
Anyway, that's how we've decided to address the issue of a multi-party twitter account (actually, I can't think of any other multi-party account that has distinct individuals tweeting - Wispolitics, State Journal, Cato, etc. are possibly multi-party sourced, but they are thus far an anonymous whole when it comes to posting/tweeting).
Yet I recommended Twitter to Professor Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy last week while out for dinner at Clancy's during his visit to New Orleans. He seemed intrigued (he has a strong base in computer science), and I hope he dives in to explore the possibilities. It's still a bit of a frontier for the time being.
I thought I would share a portion of an email I sent recently, which explains how we're using our blog's Twitter account (which you can follow over on the sidebar of the blog, too):
That's just the way we decided to designate which of the four of us happened to be making "the tweet" - as you can probably see, Steve S (designated by an /S) and I are the chief users, although Mike F has chimed in (as /F). So, in the case of the tweet you were referring to, that was me (the /B).
I'm still trying to get the hang of twitter myself - I've long been skeptical of it as being too shallow. I also think the term "tweet" is especially annoying - "Don't mind me, I'm just tweeting on twitter right now." It sounds inherently superficial.
Anyway, that's how we've decided to address the issue of a multi-party twitter account (actually, I can't think of any other multi-party account that has distinct individuals tweeting - Wispolitics, State Journal, Cato, etc. are possibly multi-party sourced, but they are thus far an anonymous whole when it comes to posting/tweeting).
Several individuals - when I slam the term "tweeting" - have reminded me how the term "blog" was similarly much maligned as a weird portmanteau back in the early days. In the short-term at least, I think "twitter" and "tweet" are worse, though. They have other pre-existing linguistic connotations that tend, I think, to diminish the credibility of the system, its users, and its outputs.
Still, it's mostly about the allure of the technology. And the people utilizing it - from Shaq to senior citizen Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley to the notorious NOLA Mardi Gras Krewe, Krewe d'Etat.
|