Long time readers may recall that I’ve discussed this before, but for the benefit of anyone unaware, it’s worth repeating. If you have something to say about a post at Simple Justice, twitting about it is not the way to engage in a conversation. The phrase I’ve come up with to gently make this point is to respond that twitter is fleeting; leave a comment.
This occurred to me again yesterday due to some reactions to my post about Joel Rosenberg. There were a number of very kind thoughts expressed about Joel on twitter, but few would ever know. More importantly, Joel’s wife, Felicia, would never see them. If anything, my hope would be that Felicia would know that Joel’s memory survives, and my guess is that the twitterers would want that as well. So what are they thinking?
A twit* about a post makes no sense. Twitter is a different platform, as are Facebook and, for the three people who just joined the internet last week and don’t know much about it, Google+. It’s not that it’s evil to use a platform other than the one where the thing about which you’re commenting exists, but that it’s ineffective. If there is a conversation happening in one room, talking in another room is a waste of time. You aren’t part of the conversation.
Twitter is particularly worthless when it comes to offering thoughts, deep or angry, nice or angry, about a blawg post. Only people who follow you or to whom you direct your twit will ever see it, and then only for an instant. Then it goes down the list and fades into obscurity. So you’ve got a really cool thing to say? If no one sees it, then what’s your post. Think, “if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no on there to hear it,” sort of thing.
I have tried, in my inartful way, to make this point over the past few years, to no avail. Some people have reacted poorly to my suggestion, outraged that I am attempting to dictate where they are allowed to comment on my posts. Others can’t be bothered. Twitter is easy, far easier than expressing fully formed ideas (especially since the new, horribly difficult captcha that my program provider has rammed down my throat).
But twitter is fleeting. It’s there, then it’s gone.
My initial antagonism toward twitter has given way to my occasional use, and it can be fun at times. While I have accounts on Facebook and Google+, I never use them and they’re merely placeholders. If someone writes something to me there, I will never see them. But I usually see twits directed to me. I’m not unappreciative of the twits that react to posts here, but it just seems to much more useful to post a comment, so that anyone reading the post can see the thought as well. Maybe it’s a great idea. Maybe not. But it just makes no sense to me for someone to try to discuss a blawg post on a different platform.
And while we’re on the subject, twitter is a really lousy platform for discussion. Any idea that requires more than 140 characters is lost, or become the content of the dreaded serial twit, which defeats the whole point of twitter. This is particularly true of people new to twitter, who twit to people they don’t know and come off as either antagonistic or demand a response that would require 10,000 words. They don’t get the medium. I just ignore them.
But if you’ve got something you think is worthy of saying about a post at SJ, I urge you to do so in a comment here rather than a twit. I, and many others, usually enjoy the conversation. It’s one of the features here. If you talk about it elsewhere, then it contributes nothing to the discussion and as far as anyone else knows, it never happened.
* It’s become my habit to call those things we do on twitter “twits.” I didn’t like the word “tweet” in the beginning, and still don’t. You may think me a complete jerk for doing so, but that’s what I choose to do.
I’ve been informed, usually be a youthful reader, that they aren’t called “twits,” but tweets, because they assume I’m either too old or stupid to realize. I’ve also been informed that my choice of calling them “twits” is so disturbing that they can’t bear to read my posts. Anyone who feels this way is urged to go elsewhere immediately, for both our sakes. I call them “twits” and plan to continue to do so. I am not 12 and do not favor cutesy internet lingo. You are not my tweeples. If you can’t get past it, we have nothing more to discuss.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I had always understood the most commonly use of the word “twit” was to describe a person as a fool. Accordingly, as to twitter and its users, I say “tweets are for twits”
Of course another definition of twit is to taunt. so your usage of twit works well too.
Either way, too me at least, its and idiotic and useless medium.
How strange. I’m quite sure those typos were not in my original text as posted. Oh well…
Oh, and you’re right, that reCaptcha tool is awful.
All typos here are forgiven. I’ve come to accept that twitter has its uses, immediate dissemination of news is one, transmittal mechanism of links is another. And it can be fun, on occasion, for quips. But as a medium of discussion, it’s worthless.
As for my captcha, I have fought with Godaddy about it, and they refuse to change it. While it’s very effective for stopping spam, it similarly effective for stopping real comments. I’ve tried to use it unsuccessfully a number of times. I’ve come to despise it.
>>My initial antagonism toward twitter has given way to my occasional use, and it can be fun at times.<< Just admit it, you love it, and all of the personal branding benefits that come with it. (Someday you will thank your genius personal branding consultant.)
I am more in the Twitstream than here, and I certainly qualify as one who is doing it wrong. Part of that is about the two convenience issues you hit. It is quicker, and the damned filter system causes me to want to tear out the little hair that remains, especially when using mobile tech..
But there is something missing. A comment akin to me too or attaboy, which I pull on in the Twitstream, seems like a waste here, especially for those who subscribe to comments. (“Great. Sug likes it. What a putz.”.) So some of the choice of Twitstream vs comment is whether a thought is worth adding to the discussion.
See my response on Twitter.
So this is my second (3rd) try at leaving a comment. Between fricking captcha and spotty mobile service, it is a challenge. And yes I am one who is guilty of relying on the Twitstream for the reasons you note.
But there are two things you are missing. First–and most important–my Twitstream SJ noises are mostly attaboy/bien hecho/yasher koach blips. Noting them as comments seems tredious, as they add nothing in substance. For those who subscribe, it becomes more noise. (Great. Sug likes it. What a putz.)
But beyond that, as much as we love to ridicule the Twitter, it serves more function than you admit. I only became an SJ reader because of the Twitter and access from there.
That said, your points are well-taken. I shall endeavor to do better.
Attaboy!
Great. Sug likes it. What a putz.
I have educated friends; lawyers, college professors, etc. It always disturbs me to get texts from them saying stuff like, “wat r u doin? want 2 c a movie?”
I have no interest in reading crap like that written by Social Media Rockstars.
That would be @EricLMayerSucksMoose?
Me either. That’s the kiddie texting lingo, which may have made some sense in the old days when texts were sent via telephone keypads that were a huge pain to use, but it makes utterly no sense anymore. And it never made any sense on twitter. It just makes people sound like 12 year old idiots.
Charles Hayes, a philosopher and author, signs all his email with “Life is too short to text and too important to tweet.”
If I ever get an email from Charles Hayes, I will immediately mark it as spam and delete it.
I don’t have anything to add, but for once I could read the captcha so I thought I’d better take advantage.
“Tredious”?
Tredious: n. A specific user of Youtube and Urban Terror member.