Why I Don’t Use Twitter
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
My main reason is that it's a closed centralized service. I suppose somebody will say "it's not closed, it has an open API" and that misses the point: it's closed in the sense that you or I can't start a Twitter service and integrate it on equal terms with the original Twitter. Email / SMTP provided us a successful model and XMPP followed later to show how to do it for real-time messaging. It would have been easy to build Twitter on top of these standards, or to extend them in open ways if necessary. Instead Twitter is a giant step backwards into a time when technology and services were controlled by single vendors. We grew out of that and I thought we would never go back. I'm horrified that the tech digerati are all enthusiastically embracing a headlong rush back into it. I can't understand why nobody seems to care - it's like the enthusiastic embrace of the Iraq war by the media - there's hardly a critical voice to be heard, and yet I can see it will only be a short space of time before people are all realizing the cage they have built for themselves and asking what everyone was thinking.
IRC is decentralised and is an open, free protocol.
I would prefer to keep using IRC but I have started using twitter for the same reason I had to install MSN messenger - to keep in contact with friends who can't or won't use IRC.
Its always about twitter.
There are many possible intelligent criticisms to be directed toward TechCrunch, but "always about Twitter" has never been at the top of my list.
There is very little to nothing insightful to add to a discussion about why some guy doesn't like twitter.
twitter is not for everyone the same way facebook is not for everyone, IM is not for everyone, IRC is not for everyone.
If it's not for you, its not for you. What insightful discussion you could possibly have about this? I added a not very insightful comment on a not very insightful topic. Which is what it deserves.
I haven't been following TC for sometime, but until few months ago, when I was actually following them a majority of their story was about twitter.
You could disagree, but as far as I am concerned, it is one of those articles about newsflash about non-news that will get some extra page-views. You might enjoy the mentality and trash journalism quality of TC - but I don't.
For more similar trashy post please read "How I Learned To Quit The iPhone And Love Google Voice" by Arrington few days ago. Judging from the comments number on that article, TC realized this kind of posts get massive pageviews (more money) so they continued the trend.
Don't be surprised if you see another post soon about "why I don't use x", that will pull some nerves from fanboy resulting in massive page views.
> Tweets have no value
For my organization, tweets do very much have a value - they help us measure the day-to-day sentiment of people interested in our company (customers, prospects, media, partners).
Our PR person sends a weekly update of all company-related tweets, organized by topic. (We don't yet categorize by actual sentiment, but that would be fairly simple to do. Since company-related tweets still typically number fewer than 100 a week, it's easy to judge overall sentiment without an algorithm.)
For our use case, at least, Twitter is pure genius. They've taken the natural human tendency to want to share thoughts and ideas with others (in spite of my own introverted personality, studies show the majority of humans are extroverted); they've made it VERY easy for people to do so (there's no guilt in NOT writing a long thesis, since you're limited to 140 characters); and they've built a platform that makes it easy to measure and organize people's thoughts and ideas by topic and sentiment.
Whether that'll allow them to ever turn a profit, who knows.
I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.
Different things require different amounts of space to adequately explore, and there are different depths you can go to for different audiences. This post was rather long, but I agree that 140 characters is generally too short.
As an example, just look at the abuses of language that occur so that people can fit everything into their 140 character limit.
In this case, for once, we have a definitive source: Letter XVI of Pascal's Provincial Letters:
The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/letters-...
I haven't found any evidence that Mark Twain or Cicero said it. Especially in Twain's case, I suspect people just decided he said it because he's known to have been witty.
[Borges’s] sources are innumerable and unexpected. [He] has read everything, and especially what nobody reads any more: the Cabalists, the Alexandrine Greeks, medieval philosophers. His erudition is not profound - he asks of it only flashes of lightning and ideas - but it is vast. For example, Pascal wrote: ‘Nature is an infinite sphere whose centre is everywhere, whose circumference is nowhere.’ Borges sets out to hunt down this metaphor through the centuries. He finds it in Giordano Bruno (1584): ‘We can assert with certainty that the universe is all centre, or that the centre of the universe is everywhere and its circumference nowhere.’ But Giordano Bruno had been able to read in a twelfth-century French theologian, Alain de Lille, a formulation borrowed from the Corpus Hermeticum (third century): ‘God is an intelligible sphere whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.’”
"I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter."
Blaise Pascal, (1623-1662) Lettres provinciales.
Not that the story need be long, but it will take a long while to make it short.
Henry David Thoreau
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.
Marcus T. Cicero
You know that I write slowly. This is chiefly because I am never satisfied until I have said as much as possible in a few words, and writing briefly takes far more time than writing at length.
Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855)
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.
Nietzsche
The more you say, the less people remember. The fewer the words, the greater the profit.
Felelon
This comment was much longer before I clicked "reply".
Also, it's very difficult to have an interesting conversation.
It's better to follow interesting people using a reader (i prefer Google Reader)
Incidentally, @newsycombinator on twitter has been one of my favorites, due to the steady stream of interesting links :-)
But then you've thrown out the voting and the comments, which is the whole reason I come to news.ycombinator.com.
Did this article get 100 points or 10? Does it have 50 comments or 5? Time is precious. I need context!
No, if it's interesting enough (which is most of the time), I'll actually visit the site again. But you're right, I do wish it linked to HN first instead of sending me directly to the article.
This somehow happens to all social networks. They try to be more open when what we really need is a closed network. I have > 300 friends on facebook (cause I just can't say no), constantly spammed with meaningless invitations like ("lost my phone need your number," and I barely know the guy/girl) and whatnot that i've finally completely stopped using facebook.
Proud abstainer of facebook and twitter here.
I tried, but I still don't get it. If I am just not using it "correctly", perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what I'm looking for?
You're looking for information. If you tried out Twitter and you didn't get it, you probably weren't receiving the information you were looking for. Its really amazing how people hype up Twitter and then when someone tries it out "they don't get it". There isn't anything to get but updates about things you're interested in. What you get out of Twitter is directly correlated to how well you tune your twitterstream. Twitter is valuable to me because it provides me with real time news and updates about the things I'm interested in. It really is that simple.
Facebook is about one-to-one relationships. Yes, there are "groups" and "become a fan of X", but the essence of Facebook, as in other traditional social networking sites, are bi-directional relationships. When I "friend" you and you accept, we are "friends" in both directions. There are no one-way "friends".
Twitter is broadcasting, one-to-many relationships. "Following" someone is a one-direction relationship. You can tell the people from older sites who don't grok this, insisting that all follows need be "followed back". But that fails to understand the power and appeal of Twitter. You can follow Oprah's Twitter feed, but you can't be Oprah's Facebook friend. (Replace "Oprah" with someone whose words you think hold value).
Example: Michael Vick signing with the Eagles this past week. I found out about this from following the #NFL tag. I saw it there hours before even the first rumor blog picked it up, let alone ESPN.
For something more appropriate for this site: following the #defcon tag was easily the best resource I had during that event while I was stuck at work. Anything interesting that happened appeared instantly there.
Twitter is amazing for unfolding events. There's absolutely no counterpart to this on sites like Facebook, it's just a completely different focus.
Does it really matter that you got the rumor/news hours before the story 'hit'? I can understand that getting such news as fast as possible might be a utility if you are a sports gamble, or sports reporter... But for the vast majority of people, do those extra couple of hours really matter?
As I said, I understand Twitter, I just don't see a need to use it.
Oh sorry, but that's the tone of voice I used to read this article.