Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Billy The Blogging Poet — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:59:55 -0000

Like you I wasn't impressed with Twitter until the locals here in Blogsboro learned some worthwhile uses for Twitter:
1. http://bloggingpoet.squarespace.com/bloggingpoe...

2. http://bloggingpoet.squarespace.com/bloggingpoe...

By the way, Stumbleupon is the real Internet crack. ;-)

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Michael Stein — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:53:56 -0000

Love the pet rock wisecrack! I'm one who finds even my email notifier too much distraction much of the time. But there is something appealing about Twitter. And occassionally useful. And you can go to it on your terms - on the web, when you need a break - not on IM or phone, God forbid.

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

shtikl — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:08:19 -0000

It's chat for autists.

(And I like it.)

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

randulo — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:53:41 -0000

It's the proof of concept of 15 minutes of fame theory to the -4 power

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

twitterer — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 05:30:21 -0000

i blame robert scoble for this post...

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Eric Berlin — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:01:06 -0000

Mathew, I started out as fairly ambivalent about Twitter, but the more I use it, the more I like it. I really like your take on it as another piece of the puzzle. For some people it is and will continue (in my view) to meet a need for staying connected and communicating in an ever frenzied world. And, sure, that will have negative consequences for some.

But for me, at the least, it's been an enjoyable way to take part in the great online conversation. I can see using it as part news reader, part e-mail, and part casual ongoing diary.

And let's not discount the fun factor. All web 2.0 and no play makes for a dull blogosphere (or something!).

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Andy — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:37:00 -0000

Unlike email and cell phones, Twitter is pure distraction. As if we weren't ADDed enough already. It will serve to divide us further - between those who actually do and create (which usually means turning off most communications devices), and those who simply want to feel they're participating in "the flow" in some way. For those who already feel like their full time job has devolved into answering and sending email, do we need any more noise? Maybe we need personal assistants to twitter for us?

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Mathew — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:01:10 -0000

Thanks, Kathy -- I would definitely agree. And thanks for stopping by to comment.

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Kathy Sierra — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:13:41 -0000

"But I also think it is another piece of the puzzle when it comes to understanding how we relate to each other in an online world, and how those relationship mechanisms are changing."

Excellent, excellent point. There's a lot to be learned from the Twitter story--now and however it plays out down the road-- even for those of us who don't like Twitter.

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

Rob Hyndman — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:52:32 -0000

Great title. I think I probably would have gone with the ...er ... root word in Twitter. Still far from convinced. Just because we already have distractions doesn't mean there aren't already too many, IMO. Stowe would no doubt say go with the Flow. Me, I think we're kind of drowning in Flow.

Re: Twitter to live, but don’t live to Twitter

webomatica — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:09:36 -0000

Good point to separate the technology from the messages.