Well, it’s about time we put in a word or two about Twitter, the hyped-to-the-death flavor of the week. Uberblogger Robert Scoble calls it “blogging mated with IM”; Forrester’s Charlene Li takes a more hedged stance; WSJ spills the bean of “Friends Swap Twitters, and Frustration” behind the subscription wall. But the blogosphere is trying to stifle a collective yawn: Twitter is for Twits; Mat Balez perhaps sums it best: RIP, Twitter (2007 - 2007).
To fess up, we were alerted to Twitter last December by one proud member of the Twitterati, who was gallivanting across Asia. Upon first glance, it seemed fleetingly interesting - what could be more innocuous, albeit vacuous, than a question like “What are you doing?” On second thoughts, it borders on obsessiveness and “strange self-exploitation”, much less “what’s the point?”
Technically speaking, it’s not the same as IM (not a conversation), or blogging (more ephemeral), or SMS (usually frivilous). So far it appears to largely serve up the thrill of pre-adolescent voyeurism or anyone twiddling their thumbs, à la 21st century. While some agree Twitter maybe a flash in the pan, the idea of uniting several distinct apps (web, IM, mobile) may find a home and purpose in our digital life by developing its own ecosystem.
Before then, have fun at “the Seinfeld of the internet … a website about nothing”. Or tell us otherwise. Or you can graze on NYT’s Twitter tweets, among others, should you be so inclined.