Archive for the ‘Twitter’ category

Hey Hey it’s Twitter debate

October 8th, 2009

The reaction to the Hey Hey blackface thing has been predictable from start to finish, from newspapers to water coolers to the Internet. I didn’t watch the show last night but as soon as I became aware of the reaction to the Red Faces skit this morning I knew it was going to be topic of the day on the Internet. And as a keen Twitterer I also suspected that it would provoke and highlight the mob mentality that tends to develop on the forum in response to stuff like this. (It’s not a phenomenon unique to Twitter, by the way.)

My initial intention was to avoid the pitchfork-style shouting I saw as inevitable and that tends to shun reason, lack any point, and feature a decent dose of aggression; I’ve taken part in my fair share of these online mobs but it just didn’t appeal on this particular issue. For someone who is usually such an optimist about the Tubes and social media and stuff, my pessimism on this one set me up to be pleasantly surprise. As the day went on the urge became so strong that I couldn’t help but dive in, and as I got more and more involved I realised that Twitter was playing a really useful role in my own thinking about the blackface incident.

The great thing about Twitter is the way it allows users to chat in realtime and follow many other users’ conversations. I’ve likened this before to “an infinitely overlapping Venn diagram.” By 11am I knew what dozens of other people were thinking about the blackface incident and my own thinking was already changing due to those other opinions challenging my own. Within an hour of getting involved my stance on the issue had been altered by some thoughtful exchanges with some people that I know and respect in the real world and some other people that I’ve never interacted with outside of Twitter. This experience was totally at odds with my fears this morning about the negative role that Twitter would play in measured discussion.

While there are many reasons that Twitter came through for me, I reckon the most crucial reason was the way that I and other people who will have had similarly positive Twitter experiences today chose to use the tool. Just like any debate or argument using any communication medium, the quality of that debate will reflect the attitudes of the participants. If everyone speaks and listens with respect, putting and defending views confidently while keeping an open mind to others’, then everyone will take something from the exchange.

This simple guideline is pretty obvious but unfortunately it is usually the first that is forgotten on the Internets where the impersonal (i.e. de-personalised and anonymised) nature of the communication tends to turn people into keyboard warriors. (I know this from first-hand experience, just in case anyone thinks I’m trying to get all sanctimonious.)

I suppose the point I’m trying to make is that thanks to my experience today I more than ever think Twitter is an extremely powerful and useful tool that can facilitate intelligent and positive debate, but it can only happen if users approach that debate with the right attitude. A few weeks back Jonathan Green said the following about Twitter:

It’s so circular at the end of the day. The conversation is lively, it all seems engaiging, but there’s a nagging sense in the back of the mind that we’re all just talking to ourselves.

He’s kinda right because we are just talking to ourselves, but Twitter has served its purpose for me if it has facilitated a debate that has positively influenced my own thinking. Today I was proud of Twitter because it did just that, but more specifically I’m proud of the dozens of Twitterers that I interacted with who made it possible.

Interview with @FakeFielding

September 21st, 2009

Jason Wilson* has posted a new interview in his series of conversations with Twitter fakers (previously published are @Penny_Wong and @andrewbolt.) This time it’s the lovable dipshit @FakeFielding.

* Incidentally, Dr Wilson is an employee of The University of Wollongong, Melbourne.

QT tweeting redux

September 15th, 2009

The other day, in response to Joe Hockey’s Braveheart-esque “they will never take my Twitter” declaration, I came out in favour (with a few conditions) of politicians tweeting from the chamber during Question Time. Of course, when avuncular Joe makes contributions to micro-blogging democracy like this one we can only shake our head in bewilderment:

julia gillard can be really nasty

But today Liberal Senator Helen Coonan joined the QT Twitter fray with this observation from the Senate floor:

The time to separate telstra was two decades ago. Step forward Kim beazley. Take a bow!

And thus the trend towards QT tweeting began (is two politicians a trend?) and a hypothetical situation occured to me that would likely cause me to reverse my support of QT tweeting.

Let’s just say that Wayne Swan is on his feet in the House of Reps droning on about economic this or that. Over the other side of the big table Joe Hockey is tweeting rebuttal of Wayne Swan’s argument. Back on the government front bench Julia Gillard has logged into her brand new Twitter account from her brand new iPhone and is rebutting Joe’s rebuttal using @replies. Joe and Julia commence a full-blown debate of the issue being addressed by Wayne Swan through official parliamentary channels, but through very unofficial social networking channels instead.

Not sure I’m comfortable with a scenario like this one, but open to hearing alternative views. What do you reckon?

QT tweeting

September 11th, 2009

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Twitter but I must admit that I was initially torn by shadow treasurer Joe Hockey’s much-publicised Question Time tweeting. Part of me thought that it’s an excellent way to strengthen our democracy by making politicians (well, one of them) more accessible to more people, but the other part of me thought that tweeting during Question Time would distract the Twitterer from his or her job. After some additional ponderment I decided that I am in favour of QT tweeting as long as it doesn’t impact on politicians’ jobs, and with my fingers crossed that Twittering politicians use the tool for proper bidirectional discussion with other Twitterers instead of basic transmission of partisan messages.

Social media expert* Jason Wilson, via the ABC**, has similar thoughts.

“There will be arguments about the dignity of the Parliament and all that, but I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing,” he told ABC News Online.

“At least it shows us that he’s engaged, he’s keeping up with debate and he is wanting to share his impressions with the wider audience.

“There’s some aspects of [Twitter] that are pretty compelling and I think in those political situations, with journos and politicians using it, it’s actually enriching the public’s view and I welcome it.

“It’s getting people’s impressions of different events and, in the case of Mr Hockey, getting a politician’s-eye view of the parliamentary process.”

[...]

“There will be people, and probably his fellow politicians, arguing it’s the debasement of the parliamentary process and he really shouldn’t be doing it, but as far as I’m concerned I welcome that perspective on the political process.”

What do you think about pollies tweeting from the chambers of parliament, and of pollies tweeting generally?

* What is a “social media expert” and how do I become one?
** How much did Wilson pay ABC to run his quotes?

Interview with @andrewbolt

August 28th, 2009

The latest in Dr Jason Wilson’s* series of interviews with fake Twitter personalities is a chat with one of everyone’s favourites: @andrewbolt. Head over to the ICR blog and check it out.

* Incidentally, Dr Wilson is a smug little shit who is comfortable in the zone of infallibility.

Interview with @Penny_Wong

August 23rd, 2009

Dr Jason Wilson* from the ICR team at the University of Wollongong is currently conducting a series of interviews with fake Twitter personalities. His first interview is with @Penny_Wong who is one of my faves in the fake Twittersphere. You really should head on over and check it out. Go on. Do it.

* Incidentally, Dr Wilson has an eminently punchable face.

Twitter babble

August 18th, 2009

Further to my recent thoughts about Twitter, this news of a study via AFP and the ABC:

Forty per cent of the messages on Twitter are “pointless babble” along the lines of “I am eating a sandwich now,” according to a study conducted by a US market research firm.

Pear Analytics, based in San Antonio, Texas, said it randomly sampled 2,000 messages from the public stream of Twitter and separated them into six categories.

The categories were: news, spam, self-promotion, pointless babble, conversational and pass-along value.

Pear said “pointless babble” accounted for 811 “tweets”, or 40.55 per cent of the total number of messages sampled.

Conversational messages – defined by Pear as tweets that go back and forth between users or try to engage followers in conversation – accounted for 751 messages, or 37.55 per cent.

Pear said tweets with “pass-along value” – messages that are being “re-tweeted” or passed on by users to their followers – accounted for 174 messages, or 8.70 per cent.

Self-promotion by companies was next with 117 tweets, or 5.85 per cent, followed by spam, with 75 tweets, or 3.75 per cent.

I’d be interested to have a look at the study for more detail, but my initial thought is that the “pointless babble” category seems to be a bit unfair. From the news story it appears that any tweet not replied to, not in reply to another, or not re-tweeted, and not classified as news, self-promotion or spam, got classified as “pointless babble”. Babble maybe, but pointless? That seems a bit presumptuous.

It’s possible to write a tweet that elicits no response and it not be pointless. What the study seems to have failed to take into account is the point that that tweet might have to readers who see no need to reply or re-tweet. I’m constantly reading others’ tweets during the day that to me very much have a point, yet for whatever reason I don’t reply to them. I tend to re-tweet when I find something significant or funny, and others seem to do the same. Therefore it’s very possible for “babble” to have a point.

But how could a study accurately measure the point or otherwise of a tweet? So much of that point, in my opinion, depends on the interpretation of the reader, and that would be a very difficult thing to assess.

UPDATE: Stilgherrian at Crikey smells and catches a rat:

The kicker is at the bottom of Pear’s blog post

“Since Twitter is still loaded with lots of babbling that not many of have time for [sic], you should check out the Twitter filter, Philtro. These guys can not only help you filter the noise, but will also be allowing you to store the tweets you are most interested in real soon.”

Gosh. It’s all just tawdry Ponds Institute pseudo-science pimping a product. Don’t newspapers and the ABC check their sources any more?

Twitter redux

August 16th, 2009

Reading an interesting post about Twitter this morning (H/T: Col), I was reminded of a piece I wrote in defence of the service back in May. I’ve re-published it below, and my high opinion of Twitter’s potential as a tool still stands. However, a mere three months later I think I would’ve written the post differently due changes I’ve observed since in the way that I and others use Twitter. Have a read and let me know how you agree or disagree, and also let me know what you think about how our use of tools such as Twitter is dynamic.

__________

I was at the pub with some mates recently when one of them — a non-Twitter user — asked, “So what exactly is Twitter?” Another friend — a devoted Twitter user — went to answer immediately, stopped, struggled to organise his thoughts, stumbled over some clumsy words, before managing the following explanation: “Twitter is like sending emails out into the internet.”

Many people are genuinely intrigued and confused by Twitter, and continue to be intrigued and confused when they fail to extract a suitable explanation for its appeal from devoted users. What is it about such a seemingly simple tool that has so many people hooked? Is a 140 character brain fart into the ether the pinnacle of 30 years of internet development?

» Read more: Twitter redux