Comments on: Day Twelve (4 Things)

By: Gambler

Gambler — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:07:13 +0000

Also, @@@@@@@@@@@! I’m very, very, very glad that Twitter made your camp stay more fun!

Ditto. I’m sorry if my wording made it sound like I was dissing the entire existence of Twitter. What I said was that it seems pointless, as in it seems pointless to me, and everything I said about it was pure personal opinion. I wasn’t trying to say that it’s pointless to everyone, because clearly it’s not. I don’t really understand why it gives so many people so many miles of pleasure, but hey, if it does, good for them! It’s just not my thing.

By: Katebits

Katebits — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:37:39 +0000

I don’t trust ANY info I get from a single source on Twitter. I getvehat you’re saying about imposters, but it’s the sheer BULK of info that I value. I didn’t know MJ was dead the first time I saw it on Twitter, I knew t five minutes later when an la times article had been linked to by multiple peopl, which again was a half hour before it showed up on google news.

And I will TOTALLY agree that it’s the technology that makes twitter useful, but show me another site being used by so many people that is using that technology. Twitter is just a little phase we’re going through, but until someone starts the next thing Twitter is fine by me!

But no buns necessary! I’m tappping all this out on my phone! I’m late to a BBQ !

By: Pookie

Pookie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:23:30 +0000

I am able to discern the good info from the bad by using my brain.

I’d agree with you except I just read an article by Emily Bazelon of Slate.com and Double X. Some grad student in Europe decided she needed a Twitter feed so he started one and began posting as her. Emily Bazelon. This isn’t even of “Brian Burke” level. Even her journalist-trained coworkers believed it was her. There was absolutely no way to determine whether it was her or not other than by asking her. I believe it’s far harder to impersonate someone on a blog where you have to write much more and where you’re expected to link to sources. With just 140 characters and no real profile information, it’s much, much, much easier to fool even those of us who use our brains.

By: Pookie

Pookie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:20:04 +0000

Hey now, I didn’t say it was pointless! I just agreed with Gambler that I don’t like the format! And that I’m wary of valuing the ease and speed of getting information over the value of the reliability of said information. And I’ll argue that it wasn’t Twitter that allowed you to get information in the woods without wifi — it was SMS technology. Twitter is just one way for people to submit information that will then be sent via SMS. Semantics yes, but let’s not give Twitter more credit than it deserves for making Bat Shack Camp tolerable! :D

Also, @@@@@@@@@@@! I’m very, very, very glad that Twitter made your camp stay more fun!

By: Katebits

Katebits — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:15:07 +0000

As for the info being somehow less reliable, that’s the same thing they used to say about blogs. I am able to discern the good info from the bad by using my brain. :P

By: Katebits

Katebits — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:08:44 +0000

Just because you guys haven’t found a use for Twitter, that doesn’t mean it’s pointless. My only point in this post was to say- hey twitter was INCREDIBLY handy while I was in the woods- almost to the degree where not having internt service was no biggie. It’s no skin off my nose if y’all don’t like it. It’s just that arguing you don’t LIKE something and arguing it’s pointless are two very different things. Come on, you’re talking to the woman who INVENTED the concept of REFUSING. I have GREAT respect for people who just….don’t like something.

You all make many good points about how twitter is stupid, and I agree with every single one of them, but the mere fact that so many people USE Twitter makes it hugely relevant. I Certainly wasn’t trying to convince anyone to like twitter! I was just saying it was an undeniably fabulous tool for me last week.

By: Pookie

Pookie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:21:31 +0000

I’ve never felt the need to get that information 30 seconds or even 30 minutes sooner.

Amen, Gambler, amen. Sure the “information” gets there faster, but it’s also shrunk down and reconfigured until it fits a draconian 140-character limit. I don’t want a 140-character version of TWC, I want the real deal! Same with Colbert. And as for news, I can’t help but let my Masters in Library and Information Science show when I think “just because the information got there quickly doesn’t mean it’s good information”.

By: Schnookie

Schnookie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:13:46 +0000

Clearly, Gambler, you also need more than 140 characters. *Fist bump* Right on, sister. Right on. :D

By: Gambler

Gambler — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:55:34 +0000

Oh, I’m fully aware that most everything I use the internet for is pointless, but it seems like Twitter’s only function is to be a shortcut to all that other pointless stuff, and it’s a shortcut I don’t really feel like taking. As funny as some of those Colbert Twitters (Tweets? I have to say, I’m not a fan of internet services that conjugate and decline irregularly) are, I’d rather go to Hulu and watch his show. And as delightful as I’m sure you are in Twitter form, I’d rather read your blog. I get all my news needs met by Google, and I get all my social networking needs met by Facebook, and I’ve never felt the need to get that information 30 seconds or even 30 minutes sooner. So I guess I do understand the appeal – ease and speed – it’s just not something I have a particular interest in.

Maybe I’m getting “Get off my lawn!”-y before my time, but I guess I feel like if I’m going to waste a lot of my time doing pointless things on the internet, the least I can do is work at it a little. :P

By: Schnookie

Schnookie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:01:12 +0000

Gambler, you’re not alone. I don’t get Twitter either. We can be luddites together, I guess. :D