Thursday, April 30, 2009
Creamtastic To Tweet or Not to Tweet: A Moral Dilemma
Posted by D Patrick Rodgers on Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:33 AM
OK. So with the title of this post alone, I've already outed myself as being eons behind all the cutting-edge bloggers, hipsters and alt-bros that compose the ever-growing Twitter tapestry. I don't tweet. There's something about being privy to the eating habits, whereabouts and other various minutiae of my friends' and acquaintances' daily lives that sketches me out and makes me feel like we're about six months away from adopting Newspeak and burning all our books. (Yes, I know I'm mixing fictional dystopias there.)
I'm certainly not saying I'm too cool for it. Or not cool enough...or whatever. I've indulged in status updates and sundry other forms of "constant self-affirmation" as much as the next guy. I just want to know if there's enough to gain from following the Tweets of active and genuinely interesting musicians, filmmakers and writers to offset the mind-numbing, tedious spew I'll doubtlessly be forced to consume from my Internet "friends" due to social obligation. I've composed a list of pros and cons to help me come to a decision. If you know something about Tweeting that I don't, or if you want to tell me I'm a fool for letting the notion even cross my mind in the first place, please help a brother out.
Pro: Staying up-to-speed on the hip local haps and bro-ing down with my community
The Privates, Infinity Cat and Battletapes are on Twitter. Michael Eades of We Own This Town and Yewknee is on Twitter. Janet Timmons of Out the Other is on Twitter. Fellow Cream bloggers and my own damn band are on Twitter (though I have contributed nary a tweet). Shit, the Scene has a Twitter. If I "followed" all these folks, I'd constantly know exactly what awesome stuff they're up to and how I could join in.
Con: Constantly knowing what awesome stuff people are up to and how I can join in
It would be much harder to get away with skipping out on stuff, and social obligation can be exhausting. "Man, I saw you updating your feed. You said you were watching The Empire Strikes Back. Again. You knew about our CD release and you stayed home anyway. Ghey!" I don't need that kind of noise in my life.
The debate rages on after the jump.
Pro: Following truly awesome celebrities in an absurdly intimate manner
The fact that I can know that Shaq is currently "bout to get [his] shaqlite/micheal phelps (without the bong) lol, swim wrkout on" is fascinating to me in the most awful way. More often than not, I skip the celebrity goss nuggets on most blogs and sites, but I think my day might be improved greatly by knowing what Zooey Deschanel had for breakfast or what Spike Lee really thinks about white people.
Con: I don't know these people
I don't need to know this shit.
Pro: Getting micro-bits from sites I follow
Administrators and contributors from sites like Stereogum and Hipster Runoff (my favorite source of satire since Colbert) update their feeds with boiled-down versions of their blogs and various bonuses. That, in turn, will help you stay informed every time someone posts about a naked guy getting tazed at Coachella. (NSFW.)
Con: I should just read the site instead of the site's Twitter
Obviously.
Pro: Everyone will join eventually
If there's one thing I've learned about social networking over the past few years, it's that we all fall victim to it sooner or later. Might as well get acclimated to the format before my mom shares her first tweet. Cue the mom joke from Adam Gold.
Con: Everyone will be using something else eventually
Like MySpace, and Friendster before that, Twitter will inevitably be left in the dust. We conquistadors of the Information Superhighway are a fickle lot, and we'll leave this one behind for the n00bs to play with sooner or later. I feel the sudden urge to go read a book.
Comments (16)
Showing 1-16 of 16
In defending my anti-Twitter stance, I usually offer this question: What is it replacing?
E-mail replaced letters, IM replaced talking face-to-face. Skype is a replacement, and improvement, over a landline. But Twitter has no obvious predecessor. It's a combination of a lot of different things -- e-mail, IM, Facebook status update -- but is it really an easier alternative for anything which we think of as essential?
(And BTW, lest you think I'm actually capable of formulating an argument on my own, just know that that entire last paragraph was cribbed from this Slate article:
http://www.slate.com/id/2215829/)
like
dislike
@dpatrod Really enjoyed your post on @NashvilleCream Come see me behind the bar soon
I am constantly confused at the idea that Twitter is based on sharing the boring minutia of everyday life. I've heard this from a bunch of people but never actually experienced it from anyone that I follow on the service.
Maybe the key is following (or at least having) interesting friends. I should give my cohorts more credit, I suppose.
I'll put your comment in the Pro pile.
My advice: You should have a twitter account if for no other reason than to get Shaq's tweets, and possibly a few other celebs or media outlets that are funny or provide interesting links. That being said, don't update your twitter if you are already saying the exact same stuff on facebook. If anyone cares enough about you to follow you on twitter, they are already your facebook friend and don't want to read the same crap twice.
I've yet to encounter anything that makes me care about Twitter, but Shaq is hilarious. Maybe that's what I'm looking for.
I usually hear a bunch of stuff over the course of my day that I think would be interesting to people who read my website, but I tend to be too busy/forgetful/lazy to blog about all of it. I use the twitter for that.
So Caleb, to answer your question, it replaces my guilt over being a shitty blogger.
Also, now that more locals are twittering it up, can we please start using Coolfer's 8means8? Getting updates on what order bands are playing in and what time they're playing seems like a super awesome use of twitter to me.
Yikes, Janet. That's the kind of answer that makes me want to pick up the book Patrick just put down.
I broke down and started tweeting, became a tweeter, a few weeks ago. But following fewer than 50 twatterers, I find the wheat-to-chaff ratio to be far too low, and the rate of fire far too high. To get anything out of it, I have to check at least once an hour, or spend half-an-hour later to catch up on the last couple of days' worth of up-to-the-minute info.
All of this is to say, if you are willing to be glued to a website all day, your efforts will be rewarded. Otherwise, I'm going to ahead and say that "following" on twitter is the internet's answer to pogs: Fun to collect, but mostly worthless.
@D. Patrick Rodgers - your answers are:
- It doesnt take the place of anything, Its something, in my opinion, wholly new. (maybe its taken the place of all the truelly crappy media out there like TMZ, People magazine and Inside Edition.)
- Facebook/MySpace is for keeping up with your friends, Twitter is for keeping up with celebs, news, etc.
- For instance, on Twitter Ive talked to Andy Dick, Kevin Nealon and Amber Benson.. where on facebook can I do that?
- If youre using Twitter to do the same thing youre using Facebook for, youve summoned the fail-whale.
Some of the great tweeters to follow? Andy Dick, Liam Lynch, Kevin Smith, CNN, Tim and Eric (from the Tim and Eric Show), GeekTyrant, me, BBC and loads others. There are also pieces of software that will make it easy for you to keep up with whats been said and separating your friends from the other stuff.
--
Vote here for best Band of the Week
Slideshows
Top Commenters
