Comments on: Why Twitter matters

By: Окулист

Окулист — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:31:25 +0000

Как раз то что искал, большое спасибо!

By: Библиотекарь

Библиотекарь — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:15:56 +0000

Спасибо, хороший блог! хотя я бы кое что добавил по теме…

By: Проказница

Проказница — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:25:23 +0000

Спасибочки) Очень помогли =-*

By: Seiji Ikeda

Seiji Ikeda — Mon, 04 May 2009 23:33:20 +0000

Yup, I agree with you. The *what* has never changed, only the *how*.

On a semi-related note, here’s why text-messaging is limited to 160 characters (140 for Twitter, since 20 characters are reserved for user-id):
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/05/invented-text-messaging.html

By: Adam

Adam — Mon, 04 May 2009 14:01:48 +0000

@Brandon – Your concerns are legit. I think the linchpin is the web’s sociality. This helps prevent the homogenization of taste. People are often diverse in what they like and so, for instance, on Twitter not only will a person you follow post a variety of things (perhaps around a central theme, yes), but the more people you follow the more this diversity will increase. So as far as Twitter goes, I think following a lot of people is definitely a good idea. Additionally, in tandem with the increased sociality of the web is the emergence of user ratings and recommendation systems which, to cite Chris Anderson once more, tends to drive people further into niches they weren’t familiar with before. Again, the key is sociality. Without this important dimension the web certainly would be in danger of becoming a myopic usercentric universe.

This also applies to citizen journalism, but in a slightly different way. The web flattens the playing field, giving aspiring journalists equally as articulate and critical as Krugman but prevented by circumstance and lacking the luck often needed to make it out of the pack the opportunity to have their voices heard. This also gives everyone else the chance to be heard, regardless of journalistic integrity, hence the need for filters. Check out Demotix. They have been successful at creating a critical mass of participants that in effect polices itself, eliminating the need for authoritative quality control. This is crucial. Wikipedia functions much in the same way. Most articles are equally as accurate as “authoritative” print sources. And they are organic, constantly being updated. Also, as the field of journalism changes, journalists should adopt the new platform and blog themselves. If they are worth their salt, I have confidence the community will promote them to the top.

@Seiji – Indeed, smart-alec ;-) But I accept it from nobody but you!

Interesting observation. It’s a matter of context and purpose. And also, from our prospective, we would still need to filter the buzz coming from the streets (e.g. listening to the sites/blogs we trust, filtering Flickr tags). The two examples have commonalities. The economics of the internet is causing business to go from authoritative filtering to unfiltered to user-centric filtering. The same can be said for politics. Now we have access to all of this street-wise information, and the issue is deciding what to bring to the fore. And *we* get to decide.

By: Seiji Ikeda

Seiji Ikeda — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:00:54 +0000

I thought it was interesting you pointed out that Twitter can *un-filter* societies for democracy and civil action, but we need to filter our Twittering.

Hmm… reading my comment, I guess that makes me sound like a Smart Alec. Sorry.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:40:35 +0000

I agree about the plethora of incoming data, and the filtering techniques that people use to “organize” their information streams, such as twitter, as well as RSS, social bookmarking, etc. I often wonder about the effects of those who become myopic and only consume information they “agree with” or may be pre-determined to agree with. I think this has the potential to obfuscate one’s perspective. If one only “sees” the information they “agree” with, how do they form an objective opinion? Also, I’m worried about the blurring lines of “citizen journalism” vs. actual journalism. I fear the day where someone like a Paul Krugman is viewed or read with the same status as an average blogger. There is a real and serious difference between the “noise” of protest bloggers and the mindful perspective of professional journalists schooled in their respective field, armed with years of experience, and able to step outside of their homes to actually interview people and conduct investigative journalism. I fear we may lose that if we’re not careful.