I was recently interviewed for an article about Twitter. I was on the rare anti-Tweet side, and I wanted to share my reasoning for why I don’t participate or see its usefulness at this point in my life or career.
I don’t pay mind to Twitter because I think it indulges the most narcissistic side of the Internet. Yes, the Web has been an amazing tool for giving nearly anyone a voice. To an extent, this is a good thing, providing opportunities for things like grassroots campaigns, promotion, dissemination of ideas, etc. But there’s a fine line between one wanting to share his opinion on the newest hit record, and another to document every last move he makes. ”Marc had a sandwich…Marc thinks turkey is the best meat!…Marc needs to bathe….” There is a built in assumption that people care, and I think the reality that most Twitter users don’t want to face is that most people don’t care about the average person’s daily life. Twitter encourages a highly self-important attitude about the most mundane things, and users often miss the point; people make connections so they have an audience for their Tweets, but many ignore their followers once they’re added, since the number of followers is what’s most important to some.
What’s interesting about Twitter is that it doesn’t take much to establish oneself and post, but because of the high volume of users and their colorless posts, it seems that it does take a lot to be “good” at such a simple interface.
One way to be “good at Twitter?” Simply, be famous. Celebrity adds an air of legitimacy to one’s feed - a reason for it to exist. It’s a great outlet for celebrities, because it provides an easy alternative to real-time updating while accommodating multi-media, and the posting interface is stripped down enough to update from a mobile device. It allows bands on the road or celebrities on the go, for example, to reveal a glimpse into their behind-the-scenes personal lives. What’s also powerful about it for celebrities is that it’s seemingly not press-controlled, and removing the caste barrier between celebrity and average citizen is an awesome power of the Internet.
For the user who doesn’t have celebrity, there seem to be two routes: separating yourself from the pack by either being discerning and thoughtful enough to make interesting posts, or to be so Lindsay Lohan outrageous that you position yourself as an Internet trainwreck. (And even these outlets still don’t ring out legitimacy.) Otherwise, one is left in the slush of uninteresting Twitter purgatory posts. Perhaps it’s a shot in the heart to hear, but that’s probably where your Twitter falls.
Swine Flu is a great current example to see ways in which Twitter plays to both good and evil. On one hand, a user can see instantaneous updates from the CDC or CNN on what’s happening, and because the information is aggregated fluidly into a feed a user constantly checks, it’s a sensible way to access the information. On the other hand, a cursory search of “swine flu” on all of Twitter reveals the opinions of uninformed people, and other potentially inaccurate information, making Twitter another pointless breeding ground of Internet gossip.
The bottom line? User beware. One should take everything on the Internet with a grain of salt: especially oneself.
Will I ever get a Twitter? Perhaps if my writing career elevates me to a point of recognition, then it might make sense, but I don’t think I’ll ever be important or interesting enough to ever sign up. Sometimes, I even feel acute pains of narcissism that this blog even exists. If no one ever reads this, it’s fine; it’s mostly for me. I would be hard pressed to believe a Twitter exists on a “for me,” basis, though. Further, it’s hard to think of a purpose for Twitter if I have a blog; I usually have more to write than a quick little quip - which, if I wanted, could go on a blog, anyway - and the short little musing ideas are best fulfilled for me by good old pen and Moleskine. Tangibility is still everything.
M
