I was against Twitter the first time I heard about it. It was two, maybe two and a half years ago, and David and I were having one of our 8:00am Grey Dog catch-up breakfasts in which he lectures me about how to get more traffic for the blog, I lecture him about how to properly date women, and neither of us really listens. Joining Twitter was his reco of the day. Join as 20-Nothings, he told me, and tweet snippets from your blog posts or other thoughts you have that are relevant to what you write.
It am not great at a lot of things (saving money, dressing down, expressing heartfelt affection without a follow-up joke) but I am terrible at a select few thing, and adapting to new technology is one of them (the other ones are math, running sports, and disguising my reaction to things I find rude). So it wasn’t so much that I didn’t appreciate the idea of Twitter, it was more that I couldn’t figure out how to use it. Yes, I now know that it’s a Facebook wall with a 140 character limit, but at the time it was very overwhelming slash hard to read.
To say that Twitter is huge would be boring – it is, in the finally appropriate words of Rachel Zoe, “everything” – which is why I was surprised to hear Malcolm Gladwell – the man who first wrote about how something becomes so “everything” – come out so strongly against Twitter as a form of social change in his recent New Yorker article – Social Change: why the revolution will not be tweeted.
I get his point – Twitter makes us lazy activists willing to throw 140 character support at any cause we have 30 seconds to re-tweet. Can Twitter really organize us, really move the social needle on anything from US policy reform to Iranian elections? I don’t know. I’ve never thought about Twitter that way, and I’d venture to guess that neither have you.
Twitter is, above all, about self promotion. Whether your self is telling your 20 followers that the party you’re at is bumpin’ or that some comedian is hysterical or – more likely – that you’re hysterical.
Can something so intentionally selfish ever motivate people in a new direction?
Twitter founder Biz Stone thinks so. He came out against Gladwell in a piece for The Atlantic. He points to all sorts of research proving the impact of Twitter – its use in charity fundraising, political organizing, and the like.
Ends Stone:
“Small Change” dismisses leaderless, self-organizing systems as viable agents of change. A flock of birds flying around an object in flight has no leader yet this beautiful, seemingly choreographed movement is the very embodiment of change. Rudimentary communication among individuals in real time allows many to move together as one–suddenly uniting everyone in a common goal. Lowering the barrier to activism doesn’t weaken humanity, it brings us together and it makes us stronger.”
I agree with both writers on the issue. Major social change the likes of the Civil Rights Movement will not be organized on Twitter, but at this point it will not go down without it.
“It’s just a promotion vehicle,” David told me all that time ago, “That’s the most it can do.”
I don’t know if I like it, and I don’t know if I’m glad, mad, or ashamed that I do it, but I think that “most it can do” is actually enough to change the world – in one way or another.
You?
3 comments
Comments are closed.
Your blog is boring.
I use it for networking purposes and to let people know about events. I think it’s a useful tool.
I’ve been using it a lot more lately because of the baseball playoffs…a little random, I know. But it helps me connect with other SF Giants fans and keep track of my team. 🙂 Plus, I don’t feel as annoying posting tweets as I would posting rapid fire FB status updates! People on Twitter expect and usually don’t mind the rapid tweeting. It’s also pretty good at spreading the word about something because retweeting is soooo easy.