Jim A.

Twitter

8 posts in this topic

I just started with Twitter. I've heard so much about it, yet I don't have a good idea as to what its real value is--or should be--to people. I'd like to hear other Objectivists' evaluations of Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on Twitter as well. I tend to think of Twitter in the same way I think of Youtube: A service mostly filled with random nonsense and teenage chatter, but a service that can offer a lot to those who know where to look.

Here are some ways that I've used Twitter:

1.) Following the thoughts of other Objectivists. If Yaron Brook is going to be on tv or if he writes something, he usually publishes it on Twitter. Or maybe an Objectivist has a quick thought on a news story that I haven't read, he or she might write that thought with a link. I like the fact that there are so many Objectivist blogs out there, but often the "micro-blog" format is all I have time to process.

2.) Following other .Net developers. There are a lot of great .Net developers on Twitter, and it's helpful for me to sometimes pick up their thoughts or news that I might not have caught myself. For example, I recently read a great programming book titled "Clean Code" that I've been pushing on all of my peers. I checked Twitter, and sure enough he's there and he posts the same ideas that I loved in the book.

3.) Pass family news. When my wife went into labor a few weeks ago, I used Twitter to keep my family up-to-date on her progress without actually having to talk to them directly.

If you stay away from those people who use Twitter to keep everybody up-to-date on what they're eating for lunch, when they go to bed, etc., I think you'll find plenty of value there. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just use it as a one stop shop for news, geeky stuff, and Objectivist updates. Also, my works firewall doesn't block it yet. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the top.

Anyone else uses Twitter? I think it's a fun way to keep abreast of the news, to some extent, and is reasonably fast to browse. It can also be a good way to learn to right concise notes (maybe - my mind isn't made on this). I'm @JDelage by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to use Twitter to keep up with news by going on select channels, and to share thoughts with friends (mostly related to breaches of freedom in the Western world). As my information sources became more and more private and targeted, and landed more and more in my inbox (active vs. passive) I stopped using it. But I love going through somebody's Twitter account to get an impression of their personality, or at least that which they want to present to the world, before meeting them in person. It is better than even Facebook in that regard.

You should have a look into the various functionalities of Twitter. For example, you can use keywords to watch news stories develop before your eyes. Right after events, all kinds of people post and Twitter allows you to find them instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just started with Twitter. I've heard so much about it, yet I don't have a good idea as to what its real value is--or should be--to people. I'd like to hear other Objectivists' evaluations of Twitter.

Twitter itself started out doing very little (providing a platform for anyone to easily pick a username, start uploading short messages of text and/or links, and follow any other user's messages, if that other user had an open account, or otherwise if they approve his request to see their messages. Not much new there.

The innovative aspects of the platform were the specific limits it set on users:

- the 140 character/message limit,

- the relatively prompt reaction of customer service, when someone stole the identity of a celebrity, thus limiting the number of fraudulent accounts),

as well as the specific and easy to use benefits, especially to people with a large following (such a celebrities, companies, media outlets), that other services did not provide, at least not in their entirety:

- the ability to have an unlimited amount of followers, who join easily and freely, without any effort on the part of the celebrity/company

- the ability to have those followers respond, without clogging one's twitter account, or page (meaning only the user can see them directly, the follower would have to search for those responses on their own - very few do)

- the ability to permanently ban, or warn, specific followers, at will

- the ability to get rid of impersonators easily fits into this category as well

And one probably unintended benefit turned out to be the difficulty for governments (at least for the Iranian government) to track or filter out twitter feeds, which is why the site played a role in the post election demonstrations there.

So the value of twitter.com (or lack thereof) is that it allows two or more parties to communicate in this specific, free, for the most part uncensored, unprecedented way. If you think you need this form of communication, it has value to you, otherwise it does not. But, as of yet, Twitter does not offer any actual content, at least not yet. They do have plans both to control some of the now open channels of communication (in an attempt to prevent companies from advertising for free, hoping they'd be willing to pay instead), and to expand the medium, to incorporate their own video and audio sharing solutions. (even though independent platforms, who rely on twitter, are way ahead of them with that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just started with Twitter. I've heard so much about it, yet I don't have a good idea as to what its real value is--or should be--to people. I'd like to hear other Objectivists' evaluations of Twitter.

Twitter itself started out doing very little (providing a platform for anyone to easily pick a username, start uploading short messages of text and/or links, and follow any other user's messages, if that other user had an open account, or otherwise if they approve his request to see their messages. Not much new there.

The innovative aspects of the platform were the specific limits it set on users:

- the 140 character/message limit,

- the relatively prompt reaction of customer service, when someone stole the identity of a celebrity, thus limiting the number of fraudulent accounts),

as well as the specific and easy to use benefits, especially to people with a large following (such a celebrities, companies, media outlets), that other services did not provide, at least not in their entirety:

- the ability to have an unlimited amount of followers, who join easily and freely, without any effort on the part of the celebrity/company

- the ability to have those followers respond, without clogging one's twitter account, or page (meaning only the user can see them directly, the follower would have to search for those responses on their own - very few do)

- the ability to permanently ban, or warn, specific followers, at will

- the ability to get rid of impersonators easily fits into this category as well

And one probably unintended benefit turned out to be the difficulty for governments (at least for the Iranian government) to track or filter out twitter feeds, which is why the site played a role in the post election demonstrations there.

So the value of twitter.com (or lack thereof) is that it allows two or more parties to communicate in this specific, free, for the most part uncensored, unprecedented way. If you think you need this form of communication, it has value to you, otherwise it does not. But, as of yet, Twitter does not offer any actual content, at least not yet. They do have plans both to control some of the now open channels of communication (in an attempt to prevent companies from advertising for free, hoping they'd be willing to pay instead), and to expand the medium, to incorporate their own video and audio sharing solutions. (even though independent platforms, who rely on twitter, are way ahead of them with that)

Very astute answer. It is obviously very valuable and you pretty much summed up why but i still don't want to use it. something about it bothers me and i can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe its because I've come to associate it with the worst of pop culture which i think is not hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites