I had an interesting conversation last night about the right way and the wrong(1) way to use Twitter, specifically with regard to the number of people you follow. It was prompted by the following comment.
Rather than repeat it all here, I Storified the string of tweets right here. Note that I bowdlerized "you're a dick" into "you're a jerk" because I'm not from London. Here in Philadelphia, we tend to faint when presented with such coarse language.(2) We're rather sensitive that way.
(1) Hint: I am apparently doing Twitter wrong.
(2) This is a joke.
===== Feel free to comment on this or any other post.
"If you follow 10,000 people, I'm going to immediately assume you're a dick and don't get Twitter."
Rather than repeat it all here, I Storified the string of tweets right here. Note that I bowdlerized "you're a dick" into "you're a jerk" because I'm not from London. Here in Philadelphia, we tend to faint when presented with such coarse language.(2) We're rather sensitive that way.
(1) Hint: I am apparently doing Twitter wrong.
(2) This is a joke.
===== Feel free to comment on this or any other post.
Very interesting. Unless they are unemployed and do nothing but sit and read their Twitter stream all day long, I guess no one is really properly "following" anyone according to that guy.
ReplyDeleteExactly. When I'm online, I see a sampling of what everyone is saying at that particular moment. Some people think it's dickish to have anything other than 100% constant engagement with 100% of the people. I accepted the limitations on time and available attention long ago.
DeleteWot? Nobody says "dick" in Philadelphia?
ReplyDeleteOh, so according to the dick, we should read every tweet? Well, I guess I suck in that department. I also suck in the blog department because I don't read all posts either. I don't read every page of the local newspaper. I don't read every memo that comes from the dicks in head office and, when I'm watching TV, I skip out to use the can during commercials.
Dick, dickless, dickwad, etc.
Just read your "storify" thing-a-ma-bob. That was quite the argument you guys had going on. I loved your point that you wouldn't even be having that conversation without your vast Twitter list.
DeleteI'm with you. "Following" doesn't mean I devote my undivided attention to you - that would be stalking. It means that you are one of the people who I choose to be around.
Delete"...And yet, even though you aren't on any of the lists I follow, I saw your "10,000" tweet in the stream and struck up the convo..."
ReplyDeleteAnd therein is the nugget in the storification.
So, Tony, even though you're apparently doing Twitter wrong your counterexample indicates you're doing it right.
Paradox anyone? :)
Yeah, the conversation pretty much stopped at that point. Interestingly, I got a response from the person who made the original comment: "Mature, intelligent conversation, and I can see how it may not be dickish, but you're still using Twitter wrong."
DeleteNeedless to say, I didn't feel it necessary to follow him.
Funny how some people believe their way to use such things as social media is the only way to use it, and all others who deviate from this are dicks who are using it wrong.
ReplyDeleteI currently follow 672 people. About a third of them post. I read Twitter in the evenings or on weekends or when I don't feel like reading a book. I scan, mostly reading posts by people I recognize and/or posts that don;t have a lot of links in them.
ReplyDeleteI don't assume I will see everything. I certainly don't assume "my way" is the only way to use Twitter. More to the point, I would never decide that someone els'es way is "wrong".
SOme of these people should spend more of their copious free time reading and less of it complaining.