Whenever a new technology gets some traction, its advocates attribute all manner of benefits. Twitter, we’re told, can find clients for your dying law practice. Twitter can make you trustworthy. Twitter can cure cancer. So I’m anticipating a bit, So what? You think it can’t happen?
After I twitted yesterday that lawyers ought to use their real names on twitter rather than marketing names, or as Mike called it, “branding”, I received a number of replies from other twitterers disagreeing. Naturally, they were people who didn’t twit under the real names. One point made was that when someone else owns your name (i.e., @JohnSmith), what are you supposed to do? The answer seemed obvious enough, to come up with some variation that provides at least a clue, rather than adopt the twitter name @HungryDesperatePersonalInjuryLawyer.
But one response was particularly interesting, “It’s abt the convo, so follow the tweets.” Ignore the abbreviations, necessitated by twitter’s 140 character limitations. Is twitter a conversation?
Twitter lovers will insist it is. I think it can be, but mostly isn’t. If one twits with people you know, then it might fall within the parameters of a conversation, defining conversation that a substantive communication between two or more people. Little of what’s twitted is substantive. But more importantly, who knows who you are twitting with?
The person who raised the conversation point would appear to be a lawyer, but is she? Is she even a she? If she is a lawyer (and a she), is she an old lawyer like me, or a kid lawyer. How do I make a point with her without knowing her frame of reference?
Most of communication comes from non-verbal cues. We can see who we talk to, what they look like, how they react to our statements. A joke is recognized as a joke by tone of voice. The meaning of statements change based on emphasis. None of this happens on twitter. It can be quite sterile, and often leads to people misinterpreting the meaning of twits.
Even between people who know each other fairly well from other venues, twitter misunderstandings occur. When the twits are between people who have no clue who the other is, it’s almost inevitable. When one of the ersatz twitterers is a total fraud, and there are many (and I mean many) people who pretend to be something they’re not (whether lawyer, social media expert or human being) on twitter, what then?
It seems that conversations can happen on twitter like anywhere else, but only if the parties to the conversation have some working advance knowledge of who they are twitting to and, more than likely, some established relationship. Sure, you can have some fun quips with someone who twits with you out of the blue, but that’s no conversation. For those who promote the use of twitter to “establish trust,” they’re just kidding themselves. How in the world can you come to trust someone about whom you know nothing more than you like his twits? If that’s your idea of trust, then you need to beat the agoraphobia.
I’ve come to enjoy twitter, though it hasn’t quite replaced all human contact. But for those who believe that this is “real”, and that they are “engaging” with people they don’t know, “building relationships” by blindly following others and “connecting” with people who twit under newly created brand names, you really need to get out more. These aren’t “conversations”, but a pale substitute for a real life.
As for who you are on twitter, that’s entirely up to you. But if you want any chance of having a “relationship” with me, use your real name. At least then there’s a chance that you will treated like a real person.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why do you continue to disparage my kind so?
Which “kind” is that, Strumpets?
There is much food for thought in your post. I am one of those who tweet under what has become my “brand.” I never intended for it to become a brand, I only wanted to shroud my identity. My reason for doing so has never been to shroud WHAT I am for the purpose of defrauding anyone but rather to keep others from doing that to me. I also want the freedom to tweet my opinions and not have my words be twisted around or otherwise used against me in my non-virtual life. People know who I am after a while anyhow and I am fine with that but Google can be tricky for lack of context.
All that being said, I am not the person you are writing about here. I do not use Twitter to shill my services or a product. I use it to learn and for the conversation. My use of Twitter has occasionally resulted in business I would not have otherwise had but that is more of a case of being in the right place at the right time for both parties. That would not have happened without the conversation but the conversation is only the beginning.
No matter whether someone uses a name or a non-related handle any wise person should approach with caution everyone they meet on line. I can find out whether you are listed with the NY bar and whether you’ve had any malpractice suits filed against you based on your real name but there is no guarantee that looking legitimate on paper makes you legitimate is real life dealings. Heck, you could have been slandered by an unhappy defendant for whom you pulled out all the stops and that likely doesn’t represent who you are for all individuals. I’d evaluate you no differently as @PersonalInjuryLawyer than as @ScottGreenfield. I make no assumptions that an individual is more legitimate because they use the name on their driver license. (My only exception to this statement is when people post things anonymously. You can trace who I am through my handle and I’ll never deny what I’ve said but those who post anonymously often refuse to be held to account for their words.)
I’m sorry you think those 140 letter snippets are not conversations. They can be. I often take these conversations to direct message, then to email, then to Skype or telephone and if I’m lucky, to real life meetings. It’s all in how you use the tool.
I hate it when people raise two separate issues in a single comment. It’s not like it doesn’t happen all the time, but I still hate it.
On your first, the issue of anonymity, this has been fought numerous times here and elsewhere in the blawgosphere. I refuse to go through it again, being a perpetual moderate in a sea of absolutists. But your explanation is frankly on the lame side. You don’t want to be held accountable for what you write? Not exactly a mark of bravery. Many people would like to do as they please and not be held accountable. Many become my clients. And why would you think that others should have to do the legwork to figure out who you are? Do you matter that much to everyone else to be worth the effort? Do you think you do?
On your second, whether twitter is a “conversation”, you offer only your feelings on the subject. You’re certainly entitled to your feelings, but they do little to persuade me. No reason to be sorry that I don’t see 140 character snippets as conversations. I have real ones, and the twits have their own place in life. I might be sorry that you think 140 character snippets are conversations, if that’s meant to be a substitute for the real thing.
There’s a real world out there with real people. It’s not twitter. Twitter can be fun, but it’s not real.
This is another very good post that, like the conversation with the “Forward Movement” children, isn’t going to be comprehended.
A real conversation involves intimacy. How do you explain intimacy to those who have no identities or souls – but merely personas or brands?
They view their conversations on Twitter as real. And in their reality, those conversations are real. A cross-promotion between Coca-Cola and Snickers is a real event. It’s also a personally and spiritually empty one.
I think of most people are a coffee cup. The cup is what they show the world. It’s their brand. Tip over the cup, and nothing spills out – because there is nothing inside.
We’ve forgotten (or perhaps never been taught) that the cup isn’t reality. The cup is merely a vessel for the reality.
Cheers.
My God, that was beautiful. You have become so brutally prosaic that I hesitate to write anymore. Nothing I say compares.
Anyone calling themselves @HungryDesperatePersonalInjuryLawyer who says to ignore his keyword gaming name because “it’s all about the conversation” is probably someone I’ll eventually want to smack.
That said, my opinion on anonymity depends what the person is using Twitter for and why. If you and I are chit-chatting about issues/topics that can stand on their own, I don’t care about your real name or your screen name. My screen name could be CrazyAdam, and my “conversations” on twitter would be just as relevant. Or irrelevant, as the case may be.
I don’t need you to trust me. I’m not selling anything. The same might not apply for lawyers trying to “network” or “market” on Twitter; I don’t know, since I’m not a lawyer.
But back to conversation… I see it as chit-chat – some more meaningless than the rest. For me it’s just a hobby, something to do in between reading novels, since I hate television. I’ve formed a few real friendships with folks I’ve met via Twitter, but my preference is to take meaningful conversations offline.
Now I feel vindicated in not choosing @HungryDesperatePersonalInjuryLawyer for my twitter name. That and the fact that I’m not a personal injury lawyer.
I raised two different issues in my comment because you covered two different issues in your post.
I also stated many people know who I am and I am fine with that. I have no problem standing behind what I write. I just don’t want some HR Director or CEO, who does not know me and does not take the time to explore the context of my words, to be able to Google me and easily draw assumptions. I don’t care if people do leg work to find out my name. Who I am is readily available to them. I am no different as LilPecan than I am to my neighbors or family. I’ve never said I was special here, on Twitter or in any of my writing. If someone feels a need to track down the name on my driver’s license, that is their need, not mine.
Who’s opinions do you suggest I express, Mr. Greenfield? It would be disingenuous for me to represent other people. I can only speak for myself. Whether I persuade you or not doesn’t concern me. It is possible for people to have differing opinions without the world ceasing to orbit. At least in my world it is.
I never said Twitter was real. I said conversations are possible via Twitter. I fail to see how you can equate one statement with the other.
A fine question, but the wrong question. Bearing in mind that this is a lawyer blog (as in blawg), the opinion, especially when it comes from someone who is anonymous (and you are anonymous to me, even if you know who you are), itself is of no consequence. It’s the reason for the opinion, the explanation of why you hold that opinion, that contributes. If your reasoning is sound, then it may well transcend your choice to be anonymous. But without it, and while maintaining anonymity so that you come without any inherent credibility (not a slight, but one of the three forms of credibility, inherent, attainted and attributed), your opinion is no more meaningful then that of any other reader, and therefore hardly worthy of the time to type it out or the time to read it.
That is a meaningful compliment; thank you. I had to look up “prosaic,” so you’re still (at least) one-up on me.
You’re most welcome.