So after checking out Twitter and using it maybe three times before deciding it was totally pointless (as though modern politics in general and "Mr. Hip" Jim Tedisco in particular aren't superficial enough), I've come to wonder: do we really need another medium entirely devoted enabling people with attention spans of 10 seconds or less?
I realize that people with attention spans of 10 seconds or less represent a very large potential market here in the United States, but is reading Facebook status messages really so taxing for such people that they need something shorter?
5 comments:
It's not supposed to be a shorter version of Facebook msgs - in fact, many people set Twitter to automatically update their facebook msgs when they post on twitter.
I use twitter since I don't check facebook at school. I actually like it, because facebook has gotten so huge, and I don't really use most of the features on it anymore. I use twitter like a note pad - to post links to funny videos and articles , and also to document when I'm finished reading a book. I like it. But I think I use it quite differently compared to some.
Yes, I think you use it differently than most, as kind of like a personal organizer.
The 'shorter version' comment was more hyperbole than anything else. In fact, I find Twitter to be exactly like FB status messages, but without the other stuff that makes FB more interesting to me.
Its a lot of those "other things" that make Facebook interesting is the very thing that tick people off.
Even as late as 3 years ago, people went to Facebook because it specifically wasn't MySpace. W/ the explosion of the damn apps, spam, & every other friggin' improvement that I don't want, care, or need, its basically MySpace in blue & white. In their drive to record profits, they've completely abadoned the identity why people liked them in the first place.
Course you have to understand who their target demographic is. Twitter is targeting the text message segment of society. Considering that its cheaper to send texts than it is to call particularly when international borders are concerned. Think like Gavin live communicating w/ Dan. Since theoretically, Gavin is already receptive to texting, he'd theoretically enjoy Twitter.
I don't mind the "other things" simply because they are voluntary. That's what I hated about MySpace: it was slow to load because you were forced to listen to each person's music or whatever.
If Twitter is a glorified text messaging service, that's fine. I'm just baffled by people who treat it as something more significant.
"I'm just baffled by people who treat it as something more significant."
That's just the media outlets sending a message that "hey, we're relevant. We know & use Twitter regularly." By having audience participation, it also gives their viewers a sense that they "matter" & thus increase ratings (which is the only thing media outlets care about).
To a lesser extent, Twitter may very well be the "new" big thing. The entertainment outlets, particularly the music industry, sure failed to notice MySpace prior to Rupert Murdoch overbuying MySpace by a factor of 20. Facebook really didn't get any MSM play until about 1.5 years ago. No one in the establishment batted an eyelash at YouTube until the Presidential Primaries.
There are at least a dozen other sites similiar to Twitter, the media outlet exposure has just grasped onto it as the latest thing. They did the same thing w/ YouTube & then lost interest.
Post a Comment