Do only twits tweet?(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Do only twits tweet?
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum18-2009apr18,0,7710376.column
7 comments
I think the number of vacuous articles about Twitter is partly due to its sudden popularity (obviously), but also because it's harder to discover the use of such a service. Sure, it's largely used for inane updates, but obviously it can have some interesting uses, such as keeping up with very current news/trends and social activities (ie: going to the bar at X, anyone up?).
However, to find out about these uses can take quite a bit of searching, especially if the reporter doesn't know anyone on Twitter. Granted, this is supposed to be the author's job, but I can understand that they wouldn't want to waste their time on what appears to simply be a worthless fad.
Really, I think the only way we'll see a decent article on Twitter is from someone who's used the service for a while, and has actually taken the time to find the signal among the noise. However, as most of these articles were probably pumped out within a few days due to deadlines, we won't find something like this among the major newspapers.
However, to find out about these uses can take quite a bit of searching, especially if the reporter doesn't know anyone on Twitter. Granted, this is supposed to be the author's job, but I can understand that they wouldn't want to waste their time on what appears to simply be a worthless fad.
Really, I think the only way we'll see a decent article on Twitter is from someone who's used the service for a while, and has actually taken the time to find the signal among the noise. However, as most of these articles were probably pumped out within a few days due to deadlines, we won't find something like this among the major newspapers.
"goes off to check his twitter feed for something more interesting"
I think the entire point is, despite the already low bar this article has set, you won't find anything. When I used Twitter, I sure as hell never did.
I think the entire point is, despite the already low bar this article has set, you won't find anything. When I used Twitter, I sure as hell never did.
I observe a tremendous amount of overlap between the links on HN and the links in my Twitter feed. I think it all comes down to who you're following, which is one reason why it's so useful: you can fine-tune your stream of links very easily to keep them synchronized with your tastes and interests.
[deleted]
this article's entire argument seems to be based around the idea that people only use twitter to broadcast mundane personal updates. that would get old very fast.
5 seconds of actual "journalism" would have evaporated this premise pretty quickly.
but hey, why actually try something out when you can just write a crappy fluff piece based on your preconceptions?
5 seconds of actual "journalism" would have evaporated this premise pretty quickly.
but hey, why actually try something out when you can just write a crappy fluff piece based on your preconceptions?
[deleted]
Yes
Do only poor journalist wankers write link bait article titles?
Twitter twits tweet twits twitter tweets.
goes off to check his twitter feed for something more interesting