Twitter Dee, Twitter Dumb

Twitter is the big, new Internet craze and everyone is jumping on board. Celebrities, especially, seem drawn to this new communication platform as are their fans. Shaq has a Twitter, Ashton Kutcher has a Twitter, Erykah Badu famously Twittered when she was in labor. News organizations such as the New York Times are also sending out updates via Tweets (message posts). It seems that there is no individual or organization that isn't somehow helped by using Twitter. Or at least that's the theory.

News shows across the country are trying to figure out why Twitter is so popular, whether it's useful in any way, and whether or not its popularity signals the end of civilized communication as we know it. All this hullabaloo started because of the restrictions Twitter puts on its Tweets, which limits each entry to 140 characters, including spaces. There have been debates both for and against the service, none of which really made any decisive points. Even Stephen Colbert, master interrogator, failed to come to a consensus after interviewing Twitter co-founder, Biz Stone. New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, went to interview the folks at Twitter and was convinced she would take them down a peg. Turns out, she thinks they're pretty cool.

I, personally, do not use Twitter. I might some day, but as of right now, I don't find it particularly advantageous to do so. I think it has some merits. Like all things, I think it depends on how it's used. As the old saying goes, each tool has its own purpose. What's is Twitter's purpose? What is the best use for it? Twitter is still relatively new and has yet to find its place among other communication services. It is certainly being used heavily, but whether those uses (such as NYT's news Tweets) are viable in the long term remains to be seen. Twitter might just be another fad waiting to die out. No one knows for sure.

Amongst all this confusion, however, is an in-depth analysis of Twitter provided by the good people at Pitchfork Media. Popularly known as the organization that rarely gives music albums scores higher than "6," Pitchfork Media, as the name implies, discusses and writes about things other than music, including Twitter. Their article closely looks at how the number of followers one has on Twitter affects the content of the Tweets as well as the responses from other Twitterers. They posit that the greater the number of followers, the more each post becomes a broadcast, rather than a personal communication. Conversely though, higher follower numbers also increases the likelihood of receiving responses to Tweets. This, in turn, creates a dialogue that might not have existed on a Twitter account with a low number of followers.

It's the first article I have read that doesn't focus on Twitter's 140 character post limit and how it's hastening our descent into complete linguistic anarachy. Reporters often point to instant messaging and texting as evidence of a society losing its command of written language. There are even online reference guides to help one make sense of all the abbreviations made in texts. Is Twitter exacerbating this linguistic snafu? Pitchfork doesn't care about that. What it does care about is the strengths and weaknesses of Twitter's ability to foster conversation beyond its 140 character limit. The article defends Twitter's function as a conversation starter and likens its Tweets to, ."..the grease on the discourse axle...By itself Twitter often works best as a dip into a mood pool, an ambient swash of thoughts on a given topic." The article made the important distinction of saying that Twitter performs best when used as a conversation starter rather than a substitute for conversation itself. Whether it actually gets used in that way remains another matter. At least now, though, there's a sign pointing in the right direction, 140 characters at a time.