7 Reasons to dislike Twitter

Valeria wrote an interesting post about Twitter, and while I think Valeria's points have relevance, I have to take umbrage at someone named "Vaspers the Grate". Here's the response I would like to have written; however, I promised not to be such a curmudgeon! However, this Vaspers person is quite condescending, and not a little arrogant. I'm responding to a post of his entitled "7 reasons NOT to Twitter". I'll add an eighth: because I don't like it.


I have elected to restrain myself to the same 7-point format Vaspers has used. And I repay Vaspers' condescension with some of my own.

===

1. Narcissistic
I don't know who reads this blog. I don't actually know if anyone reads it. I write because I like to write, not because I want to engage in some sort of unnecessary verbal combat. Anonymity isn't something I worry about; it's nice to be recognized, but in general - I live my life, and write, for myself. My wife thinks some of my writing is good, and I've had some really comments from people, and that's good enough for me.

I don't need the validation of "instant feedback"; the sort of thing that Twitter, apparently, gives you.

2. Message Speed.

"A rushing river of brevities"? Hmm. Can I point out that a collection of brief statements doesn't necessarily make a comprehensible story?

Vaspers makes the completely unwarranted, arrogant and ridiculous statement that those who don't use Twitter can't process the velocity of what passes for discussion on Twitter. Really? I'd better go fetch my deck chair and collapse on it from the obvious tiredness I must be feeling.

Context is all - how do you derive context in 140 characters? I read newspapers because they provide more information than the typical headline; I read "The Economist" because they set events into a more global perspective, and I read journals like "Foreign Affairs" because they provide an historical, analytical and contextual narrative that I can't get elsewhere.

And no, it's not that I can't process many ideas and concepts at once, it's just that I choose not to. I live my life at a pace that suits me. No one else, just me. If that means I read one thing at a time, think about it and move on to whatever grabs my attention next, well: that's my choice. I don't need to prove to someone like Vaspers that I can actually operate in a high-pressure environment; I just choose not to do so. I don't have any need, any innate desire, to prove my capabilities to anyone, except myself.

Condensing complex ideas into 140 characters proves nothing, except that maybe you don't understand the idea. Or that you do, and want to show off.

And I'll stay a "slomo blogger", thank you very much. I write because I like to, because I like to explore ideas, and play with the language. I don't need to Twitter to do that; I can do it perfectly well in a format that's been around for a few millenia: the considered, and stated opinion.

3. Reply Velocity.
Proving that there's little new under the sun, this is a variation of point #2.

I choose not to engage in shallow verbal combat; it's simply not something I like to do. To me, that's not a discussion, but a child's shouting match. I was never very good at it; some people have the capacity to engage in such games, but I simply don't. Apparently, that makes me a bit stupid. Ah well: I always suspected that to be the case. :-)

I will point out that the quick response isn't necessarily the correct one and that being able to parse a volume of responses proves nothing. To me, and a few other people I know, being able to understand a complex idea and respond with intelligent commentary is nice; it's usually called a "conversation", but shouting sound-bites at each other has, apparently, replaced that antiquated and foolish idea.

I'd hate to go for a pint with this Vaspers; it must be a tiring, not a relaxing, experience.

4. Message brevity
Oy. How many times do we have to go through the same point?

"Pithy statements and concise writing are not your thing."

Codswallop! Is that pithy and concise enough? Frequently the brief is trite; and often it fails to capture the writers intent.

"... you don't care to learn the marketable skill of condensed idea formulation."

No, I don't. Besides sounding painful - and it's really poor English - I prefer to learn the art of getting my idea across. Condensed idea formulation? Which aisle is that in?

Want brevity? Try Haiku.

5. Message Anonymity
"A list bloggers" notwithstanding, most of us live in relative anonymity. Here, I think, Vaspers provides the clue to Twitter: you're not anonymous. People respond to you, and your quotes. You can exist outside of the realm of the immediate.

The implication of this point is that Twitter users seek anonymity. (See how the short sentence isn't necessarily the best conveyance for ideas?) He contends that celebrities have an equal say to everyone else; a self-deprecating comment doesn't remove the arrogance of the point, however. Celebrities are listened to more than others; to suggest that I would get equal billing with, say, Bill Clinton, is ridiculous. People will pay attention to those they know; celebrities are known - and listened to. Even when they have nothing to say, or a stunning lack of knowledge of the subject.

6. Addictivity [sic] Dangers
I see this in writings about Second Life; real life becomes the artificial, and the virtual becomes ever more real. Twitter (apparently) provides immediate feedback; you can complain about your boss and get messages of support immediately. Makes you feel better, more appreciated and less dependent upon your own self for that support. It's not that Twitter is addictive (point #6); it's the "feel good" affirmation that's addictive.

Shooting out pithy statements might be addictive (I wouldn't know), but I can't say that being flippant about the very real problems of Internet addiction are satisfied with a derogatory, not quite so pithy, less than concise statement, is any help in understanding the issue.

7. Promotional Lethargy
I'm at a loss about this one. It's a catch-all, a basketball net of soundings and sweeping conclusions.

So what if I'm not interested in making "friends"? It's none of his business if I do or don't want to make friends. The Internet doesn't make friends - it make a new sort of friend, the "e-friend", if you'll allow me the indulgence of playing with words. The sort of friend who doesn't necessarily show up when you need them - they can't. Stay out of my life, Vaspers - and don't make senseless, obscure, subjective and groundless accusations of what you think my life should be. I have enough with the religious telling me what to think; I don't need you telling me how the rest.

Mr Vaspers assumes everyone wants to be liked. He must confuse me with someone who gives a damn whether he's liked or not.

I care about communities; it's why I left the Corn. My anger at C's comment is such that I fear I could easily destroy any semblance of trust, and decorum. Vaspers, it's you who doesn't understand communities: you seem to think they're based on the idea of short, pithy and concise comments over a medium that requires entire communities to put together. Communities are complex groups, with many different permutations and individuals. Just because some of choose not wear our community on our sleeve, means nothing about our commitment to any particular community.

====

I got so annoyed at the condescension I sensed dripping from Vaspers' comments about "conventional" bloggers. What am I? A stuck in the mud because I refuse to acknowledge Twitter as the best thing since sliced bread?

Twitter might be fun for some, but for me, it's a sign of the increasingly short attention span we seem to have as a society. I prefer the measured pace of blogging; I let the writer set the pace, not the technology. I don't care if someone shoots down my ideas; welcome the interaction, in fact. I've never been terribly good at that ritualistic and shallow linguistic combat, so I refuse to indulge in it - no matter the medium.

As I said, I write because I like to write, to explore the language and ideas. Not because I want to engage in verbal combat. For me, the enjoyment I get from reading the efforts of a good writer far outweigh the ability to respond with some quick, and meaningless, comeback. (I consider all of the bloggers listed on my blogroll as good writers; poor writers don't make it to that list.)

Twitter is a perfectly fine channel for some, it's just not for everyone. But, there's always someone willing to confuse their enthusiasm for a particular idea for a religion that all should adhere to. Vaspers makes Twitter a religion, and as such he's made his ideas ripe for contradiction.

I don't like Twitter, and that's my prerogative. I know some who don't like blogging; that's their prerogative. It doesn't mean they're stupid, not-with-it or unable to keep up with the world. It just means they don't like blogging: and I don't like Twitter. So what? Don't tell me what to like, or not. And don't tell me I'm stupid because I don't like Twitter. And please don't confuse a technology with a religion.

Carolyn Ann