Bitter about Twitter

Twitter was the technology that I thought I was the most curious about at the beginning of this assignment. Turns out, I was wrong. Maybe it's CPL 2.0 blogging fatigue setting in. But I'm not curious enough to try to dissect the anatomy of a tweet. I'm not interested in acquiring a new vocabulary of hashtags, retweets and hovercards.

"Twitter asks “what’s happening” and makes the answer spread across the globe to millions, immediately" - according to the website.

I understand there are situations where this is fun, handy, maybe on rare occasions a necessity. But as a rule, I don't need to know the instant that Al and Tipper Gore have decided to separate. I can wait until I watch the "news" to find out about important, earth-shattering tidbits like that.

"Twitter is a rich source of instant information." - advertised on the website

Instant information = unreliable, gossip, not the full story. Reading tweets on Twitter is like getting your news from reading only the headlines in a newspaper or tabloid - it doesn't give you any context or background. So while I may have more information coming at me, I don't have more knowledge about what's going on in the world. I have the illusion that I'm well-informed, well-connected. Don't any of us have the time and patience, the desire to look beyond a 140-character micro-blog to get the whole story?

"Friends and industry peers you know. Celebrities you watch. Businesses you frequent. Find them all on Twitter." - from the website

Industry peers and businesses = advertising, doesn't it? Why would I voluntarily sign up for more of that? And celebrities! Why would I value Ashton Kutcher's opinion about something any more than I'd value the opinion of a complete stranger? I am unavoidably inundated with advertising and celebrity gossip in so many other places, I can't fathom why anyone would want more.

Surprise, surprise - I'm giving Twitter two thumbs down.