Epic !FAIL! on teh Twitter
So TechCrunch, normally the font of all human wisdom and understanding, gives us this:
But the power of Twitter is more about how many people are following you than how many you are following. It is about pulling together an audience and talking to them directly, and letting them reply directly in a way that seems intimate but is still quasi-public.
How can I say this…? Um, NO! !FAIL! BZZZT! TRY AGAIN! YOU SIR, HAVE MISSED THE POINT!
Am I making myself clear?
Sigh.
I am followed by ~1500 people. I follow ~1000 people. Preferentially Australians, but if you’re interesting enough — even as a North American — I’ll follow you.
Why? Because what you have to share with me is of far more value to me than anything I might share with you. I thrive on the input of a thousand other people. Your insights and observations have immense value. And yes, it takes time and effort and winnow out the wheat from the chaff, but it’s not impossible.
It seems to me that in the hyperconnected era, that’s a very important skill to possess.
So no, TechCrunch, Twitter is not a popularity contest. It is not a way to get teh “Thoughts of Chairman Mark” out to a vast and unknowable audience. It is, instead, a way for me to experience the best and highest thoughts of a multitude of others. Something that was never possible before this point in time.
Which may be why TechCrunch failed to recognize it.
Tags: hyperconnectivity, knowledge, meaning, sharing, Twitter
August 14th, 2008 at 8:51 am
I think Techcrunch isn’t wrong, it is just their opinion. For some people – those with a big ego – it is a popularity contest.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Well, I do agree with you that Twitter creates a sharing environment where thoughts and ideas travel in a semi-public space that gives them momentum, reach and visibility that creates a conversation that might not have otherwise occurred. And Techcrunch does touch on that in the end of the blurb “letting them reply directly in a way that seems intimate but is still quasi-public.”
Twitter is successful (whatever that actually means in a non-revenue, bleeding edge, ‘social media’, ‘web 2.0′ manner) because it can be many things to many people (pulpit, mass conversation, marketing platform, customer service venue) and it is extensible and pliant (when it works).
I also think that following more than a couple hundred people requires a different communications frame than most people over a certain age currently possess or utilize.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Marc -
I am one of those “people over a certain age”. Very nearly 46 years old. Managing a huge social network is probably _easier_ for someone of my years than someone in their teens or 20s. Sure they can “multitask”, but social relationships are more deeply threaded and meaningful. I reckon this is one area where more mature individuals will truly shine. They simply bring more social skills to the table.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hi Mark – A bit belatedly checking feeds and found this. I have pondered this previously and wonder whether it’s a nationality based thing – It seems to me that (Warning – possible grand and unfounded generalisation coming up) that Australians do social media very differently from America –
There does seem to be a lot of the popularity contest thing happening, this could be – a) size of population b) business/culture in US, a genuine difference in the way Australians approach connections. I’m not sure, but I’m fascinated by it, and thanks for focussing my diverse and unpopular thoughts.