dagblog - Comments for "Tweet, Twitter, Trifle, or Piss in the Wind For All I Care"

without a doubt, there is

Deadman — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:20:00 +0000

In reply to In essence - we agree. I have

without a doubt, there is good stuff being tweeted - when it comes to stocks, when it comes to breaking news, when it comes to product or movie reviews, etc. - and a search engine that is effectively able to filter the good, juicy stuff out of all the noise will be insanely successful, (i'm assuming placing preference on people with a lot of followers or tweets with a lot of replies - sort of like google's pagerank algorithm - will be a key component of such a service).

but i agree that there's nothing new here from a tech standpoint - the new thing is that people have basically en masse agreed that they are willing to open up their SMSes and emails and status updates to the entire world.

Twitter pushes information no

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:38:00 +0000

In reply to In essence - we agree. I have

Twitter pushes information no faster than RSS or e-mail. What it does is make things that have been around "new" to a new audience. This is the key to understanding it: It is the audience that is new, not the technology.

I don't disagree with you and

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:36:10 +0000

In reply to Twitter is Web 2.0

I don't disagree with you and haven't. The point that I've tried to make again and again: The explanation for the success of Twitter lies not in what it does technologically, but in what is happening around it culturally. Looking for the explanation in the technical details is causing him to see ghosts.

In essence - we agree. I have

elliottness — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:55:36 +0000

In reply to No, it can be brief. Must it

In essence - we agree.

I have tried to state explicitly that there is nothing really new here.

I think the true Irony is this discussion I only follow a few people on twitter - I think most people have little of interest to say.

I have yet to see anyone provide me any examples of this process outside of twitter. I am interested in this because I plan to leverage off of the concept on my next business plan.

I am not advocating limitation, although I do know that design can be improved through constraints. I am saying the limitation makes it easier to participate, ease of participation increases likely adoption, likely adoption increases the chance of further development.

As for the advancement of information management - I think it "pushes" information faster. For better or worse. I think the process of developming "newer" information management tools is happening as we speak.

stocktwits.com

twitscoop.com

tweetmeme.com

Twitter is Web 2.0

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:07:05 +0000

In reply to No, it can be brief. Must it

Twitter is Web 2.0 (multi-user, data-driver, user-created) + SMS. That's it. This technological emperor is as naked a jay bird.

I don't think that's the point. There is little technological innovation in Facebook either, but they packaged existing technologies into a product that appeals to a wide audience and provides a service that 100 million people deem valuable.

Elliot has been attempting to explain why twitter is gaining such wide appeal as well. He's hit on some of the pragmatic aspects which are, yes, shared by other technologies. But his post was a specific response to those who felt the service was without value.

There is also a second question of why Twitter as opposed to other services. Elliot took a stab at that question--the SMS addition that you seem to dismiss as unimportant. But if SMS + Web 2.0 was indeed the magic combo that fertilized the beanstalk, well that is significant, even if it didn't require a lab of MIT geniuses to invent.

Oh, for a mental

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:20:43 +0000

In reply to I meant safer to the person

Oh, for a mental straitjacket.

I meant safer to the person

Orlando — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:07:29 +0000

In reply to So, either: 1.) There are

I meant safer to the person having the thoughts. I don't think I'm less safe with more inanity loose in the universie. Although I am certainly more annoyed.

No, it can be brief. Must it

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:39:12 +0000

In reply to Fahrenheit 451 Mildred's

No, it can be brief. Must it be brief? Take an e-mail for example. It can be as brief or as long as you want. Is having a constraint automatically good? No, it's not. Does this constraint actually make sharing any easier? No, it doesn't.

This is where your thesis really isn't. As Gertrude Stein is supposed to have said, "There's no there there."

Twitter, because of the length limit, is a layer that is reaching deeper into society at a faster rate than ever before.

This you say, but what's the justification for any of it? It's reaching deeper? How so? Faster than what? Because of the length limit?

I'm not anti-Twitter. I think it's silly, but people can use it if they want. You're the one who's gone far afield in trying to present some kind of justification for it on a technological basis. However, though you assert that it represents an advancement in the way we manage information, you fail to make the case. Ironically, you've expended many words in support of the supposed power of brevity, but end up with this:

If there is a backbone of data transmission that is unified, then devices can issue summaries or layers of data for use by nearly anyone.

Taken out of context, this sounds more like a description of the Internet than of Twitter. Twitter is Web 2.0 (multi-user, data-driver, user-created) + SMS. That's it. This technological emperor is as naked a jay bird.

However, there are millions for whom this represents something new. As is often the case, perception is reality here. But this, as I've offered previously, is not new technology or even a new layer on old technology. It's a new culture that is using old technology in a way that is new to them. Does this new use represent progress? A way forward or a step back? That remains to be seen, but so far it's a lot of sound and fury.

Fahrenheit 451 Mildred's

elliottness — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:32:04 +0000

In reply to Where is it you see freedom?

Fahrenheit 451

Mildred's friends (Mrs. Bowles and Mrs. Phelps) Mildred's friends represent the average citizens in the numbed society portrayed in the novel. They are examples of the people in the society who are unhappy but do not think they are. When they are introduced to literature (Dover Beach), which symbolizes the pain and happiness that has been censored from them, Mrs. Phelps is overwhelmed by the rush of emotion that she has not felt before.

I concede the word free - I was trying to capture ease of sharing. You can generate an instantaneous blurb or a well composed 140 chartacter poem. One will be quicker, and the ease of use aspect facilitates participation. I enjoy a bit of both.

Guaranteed Garbage Generator

No doubt.

The key to any information stream is the correct filter. It is as natural as survival.

Must everything be long? Is it our cultural duty to preserve long sentences? Or is there room for co-habitation?

Are you anti-lichen as well?

Where is it you see freedom?

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:11:53 +0000

In reply to Where is it you see

Where is it you see freedom? "Slavery is freedom" is a quote from Orwell's 1984 (though I think I may have it backwards from the way it is presented in the novel). I invoked it as a comparison to the bizarre perspective that limitations amount to freedoms. That smells like 2+2=5 to me.

The rest of your comment is cryptic. I didn't say anything about privacy one way or the other.