I'm still trying to decide if Twitter actually offers an alternative way for people to get information about people or things they are interested in. For years, people and companies that are worth "following" have had websites. There is also usually a ton of information about important people and topics published online by unofficial websites. So what's Twitter's USP?
As far as I can tell, it's the immediacy of receiving information. It's much easier to send a tweet than to update a website or wiki-page. Immediacy of transmitting information is something that until recently, radio was best known for.
Of course, the big problem with Twitter, unlike radio, is accountability. Where is the information coming from? There have been a few instances where imposters have used Twitter to slander or tarnish the reputation of important people; Chef Michael Smith for instance. Radio, however, uses typical journalistic practices to report on information, so people can generally trust it more.
I imagine that as Twitter progresses, administrators will improve the process by which they screen users, and in turn that might improve the quality and reliability of information that "followers" receive.
I have noticed that my group of friends have not embraced Twitter to the degree that they have embraced Facebook. But I think the services are quite different, so I'm not even sure it's relevant to compare the two.
When I boot up a web browser, like most people, I have a hit list of at least a half a dozen websites that I check routinely. I won't really give Twitter props until it can crack my top 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment