Why Twitter Is the Template for Future Communication

By Andrew Jeffery Nov 18, 2009 8:05 am
Overcommunication and its effects on society.
  • Share this article:


It's not easy to admit you're wrong. 

I don't typically keep up with "new technology." In fact, I've often been accused of living in the past. So, when I found out about Twitter -- a year after it went mainstream -- I made a snap judgment regarding its purpose and intended use (and therefore its relative value or detriment to society).

I was wrong.

As I said unequivocally at the time, "Twitter will be remembered as the peak of the social networking bubble." My reasoning, which I still cling to in part, was that Americans communicate far in excess of what is useful. We spend too much time attached to our wireless devices and computers, rehashing the past or fretting about the future, informing other people or being informed about minutiae, details that ultimately have little bearing on our own lives.

Rather, I argued, we should be out inventing, exploring, adventuring, communicating (in person) and discovering -- in short, living; concerning ourselves more with the present than the past or future.

To this notion, I still cling. However, Twitter's role in my idealistic social construct wasn't yet one I could appreciate.

Twitter, according to my ignorant understanding, was a way to find out how and when complete strangers take their coffee. In other words, to learn of the finer, yet superfluous details of life.

Although I'm quite certain that a meaningful percentage of Tweets fall into this category, I'm less concerned with Twitter's current use as I am about the future.

The world, as it turns out, is changing. And this fact is about the only thing that hasn't, isn't, and won't ever change. Our means of communication are evolving along with the rest of our increasingly complex lives, and no amount of lamenting about simpler days will slow this inevitable march toward the future.

It goes without saying, given the travails of big newspaper companies such as Gannett (GCI), McClatchy (MNI), and the New York Times Co. (NYT), that print is dying a slow, painful death.
 

The Internet, meanwhile, has become too wieldy to manage. Basic information appears in triplicate upon triplicate, and the chore isn't finding a piece of data, but figuring out if it's worth, pardon the expression, the paper it's printed on.

Twitter has the potential to change all that.

By giving every human with access to the Internet a voice and concurrently allowing each of those humans to "listen in" on the thoughts of other humans, Twitter allows each of us to construct our own condensed version of the rest of the world.

By following people you trust to sift through a segment of the day's news and other goings on, you can keep tabs on a human-screened roll of news stories, not to mention receive pertinent details (okay, not always pertinent) from people whose lives you actually care about. 
< Previous
No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2010 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(5)
2009-11-17 18:30:48
Some more thoughts on news and Twitter
First, I'm biased because one of my near relatives works in the newspaper industry.

But..there is a genuine need for large news organizations. There are some medium size outfits doing specialized reporting but it's still the big dogs of the world supplying most of the news content. The problem is it's no longer brain dead easy to make money supplying content. That's the adjustment that has to be made by every media outlet.

Also, dead tree versions of the news are not 100% dead - it's actually turning into a luxury item. People work at computers. If they want to relax, they pour themselves a cup of coffee, open a newspaper, preferably with shiny bright coupons and comics in it. (Try that on a website.) Sunday is the day of the week that will save the large papers, if anything does at all.

On Twitter - I have been reluctant to adopt more communication technology, too. I have been on Twitter - most of my friends/family are on Facebook. I don't know if Twitter will die - I think it's probably here to stay. However, I think we may have reached or coming close to peak spread of it.

It is an overstatement to say that the whole world wants or needs to be on Twitter. I read of an ad exec who proudly proclaimed that she knew the news first thanks to Twitter, way before it the websites. And my first thought was "Yeah, and so what? Are you getting your work done being bombarded every 30 seconds with news?"

I read of another woman who Tweeted how glad she was that she was miscarrying so she wouldn't need to get an abortion during a board meeting. Apparently it hit the MSM and she was upset that everyone else was upset about.

She hadn't quite grasped that Tweeting to an opt-in audience of 19,000 or so is not *private*. Tweeting seems seductively private and yet is hideously public. It is a stalker's dream, really.

If you are a news junkie, then Twitter is great. If your friend and family have chosen Twitter as their main communication device, then great again. (I've noticed that there's a serious technology divide in the use of Twitter vs. Facebook - the advanced technologists tend to gravitate towards Twitter, Facebook is the Mac of the social media world.)

For me though, I check my Twitter account for some news once a week and get off. It moves to fast for my poor brain. I have no plans to expand, especially when Facebook appears to be the vote of my immediate circle.
2009-11-20 02:16:29
Some more thoughts on news and Twitter
Hi Amy,

Thanks for the thoughts ... its almost like you have thought about this stuff!

I do agree that newspapers are becoming a luxury -- wonder if books will become a luxury as well, thanks to devices like the Kindle.

As for Twitter and the immediacy of news, trust me, even the thought of doing anything other than ragging on Twitter was difficult for me to come to terms with. It's not even that it's immediate, knowing the news before they hit the headlines -- as you say, who cares? For me, it's the ability to customize the news flow to include only the subjects I care about.

For example, I care only very tangentially about the Golden State Warriors. I don't care enough to follow the wins and losses, the players, etc, but I do know that I follow a couple of my friends who are die hard fans, and that if anything truly important were to happen with the team, one of them would post it. Saves me the time of skimming the sports pages for Warriors news.

I follow a couple guys who post interesting data about the housing market, a couple about equities and then some friends. But after watching the posts from the few people I do follow, I know that they are close enough to the source that Twitter can act as a bit of a filter, something I can check a couple times a day to see if anything ground breaking or otherwise worth my attention has happened for the subjects I select.

It is definitely a strange thing to post things that can get sent out to the world at large. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people like the ones you mention about the publicity for her miscarriage (no sympathy for the publicity, sympathy for the miscarriage) -- buyer beware when it comes to Facebook and Twitter.

Facebook to me is worse than Twitter, it's sort of all or nothing. I find very little useful comes up on Facebook -- lots of distraction, but not much useful.

Give Twitter a shot -- spend some time looking at the people who people you trust follow. Also find some well known people and see who they follow. I mean, if you have tens of thousands of followers, you may be a bit discerning with the people you follow. It sounds wonky, but follow some threads and you happen upon some interesting stuff.

Andrew
2009-11-20 11:29:00
Some more thoughts on news and Twitter
Thanks for your thoughts, too! What's interesting to me is the different way the two tools get used.

Like this:

"For example, I care only very tangentially about the Golden State Warriors. I don't care enough to follow the wins and losses, the players, etc, but I do know that I follow a couple of my friends who are die hard fans, and that if anything truly important were to happen with the team, one of them would post it. Saves me the time of skimming the sports pages for Warriors news. "

This to me is essentially using Twitter as RSS:The Next Generation. You could have accomplished the same thing by carefully picking bloggers or sites and then setting up an RSS reader.

My problem with Twitter as an RSS replacement is that it's too easy for the good stuff to be intermixed with the personal. I'm going to pick on Kevin Depew's feed for just a minute. (Sorry, Kevin). :) Quite often he has links to his own stuff and I found his feed I found another very good info source. But then also he posts song lyrics and requests for restaurant picks, which however entertaining, wastes a lot of time given the reason I'm there. An RSS feed of just his article headlines would save me alot of time.

On Facebook, I'm not actually looking for outside news. I want the news coming from my family and friends, like one of whom recently went through a series of scary cardiac tests. (She appears to be fine.) In that sense, I don't consider it a time waste because I'm in touch with a real life network.

I may go back and revisit Twitter at some point as it appears to be the universal RSS feed, me liking it or not. (Betamax users didn't get much of a choice eventually either. *grin*). Anyway, thanks for this interesting discussion.
2009-11-20 13:08:56
Some more thoughts on news and Twitter
Yeah there definitely is a bit of taking the good with the bad on Twitter. I am very interested to see how Twitter fares over the next few years -- still not sure how they make money. And for that matter, Facebook has the same problem.



2009-11-20 16:24:42
Some more thoughts on news and Twitter
Yep. Sometimes I feel like the only person going...but how do these "cool sites" all make money? Facebook has a fighting shot with ads, but Google's model is much better. I have no idea how Twitter makes money unless they either do ads or charge for the services.
Subject:
Comment:
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options.  Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.





Minyanville Marketplace