Okay, so it’s Wednesday morning and I’m being bullied. It’s particularly bad today. This torment has been a part of my life for almost 3 years now, and recently it has become quite ferocious. My adversary is not big, not hulking and doesn’t flush my head down the toilet; but it is fiendish. I am being bullied by a question.
This particular morning, it’s so bad that I am forced to externalise. I blurt it out at my fellow academy member: “For God’s sake! What the hell is Twitter?”
Lilli, cool as a cucumber (as of per usual), curtly replies: “It’s where you update the world on what you’re up to, in 140 characters. It’s calling itself a micro-blogging service.” The pressure rises and the internal valves start to shake under the stress. I’ve probably turned red.
“No”, I seethe, “not what is it literally. What does it represent? What is its social function?”
“Ah” she says. Silence falls.
You see, plenty of ad folk have a fair grip on Twitter’s most obvious facilities (for those still catching up, a rather excellent clip explaining its most literal ins-and-outs is included below).
Our problem was that neither of us had a firm grasp on the far more slippery subject of its significance. Worse still, by the looks of things, neither did Twitter. No official line had been given on its reason for existence, its positioning, or its ambition.
You might think that all of this is really rather academic, and that the only solution I should be recommended is a planned course of tranquilisers. Well, I probably shouldn’t argue with you on the second point, but I will come at you full-force to contradict the former. I will stop you dead with: “if we don’t understand it’s social utility, we can’t use it as a commercial tool”. Not so academic anymore, huh?
As a result, in this update I will be exploring Twitter’s substance: its shape, how it sits, what it is. The first thing to get out of the way, is the pub-philosophy that Twitter simply represents the incredibly dull and self-important wittering into the dark about their preference of breakfast cereal (for a fully-fleshed out treatment of this aspersion, please see "The Twouble with Twitter").
Although the above video is excellent and does contain certain elements of truth, it is unfair to assume that it surmises all Twitter amounts to. In fact, the counter argument is quite clear. Faced with such blunt satire one can snappily retort that whilst people may be seemingly “micro-blogging” about the most mundane minutiae of their daily routines, other users (through the use of the “@” function) are replying. Moreover, one can moot that these replies are of a form and length that equals that of the original post. It can be continued, that these new comments can then also be responded to, and then those replies of replies can be met with subsequent....well you get the idea.
In short, it can offered that, far from solely enjoying e-rhetoric, Twitter participants also savour lighting the dialogical touchpaper - and then sitting back to watch as a self-perpetuating exchange crackles into life.
But does this then mean that Twitter is simply an e-message board, catering for all varieties of personal conversation; from the bogglingly complex to the arm chewingly mundane?That would be neat.
Too neat maybe. In fact, it would probably be healthy to view even this more sober conception with a spoonful of cynicism. The most obvious loose thread dangling temptingly from the weave of this neat little cardigan of an idea is the evidence that Twitter has also been used for conversations on a grander than “personal” scale. We might consider that over the past year it has adopted a “societal” function. This may seem a little involved, but bear with me, I can explain.
Remember the discoveries made by the Phoenix Mars module, in 2008. On the 31st July, the craft reported back to Houston news so huge that it threatened to redefine a scientific epoch; water had been found on the surface of the red planet. This was massive, it was fundamental that the world’s population knew as soon as physically possible. And how, you may ask, was this information disseminated? Well, firstly, by Twitter, of course.
This variety of incredible Twitter reportage littered the chronology of 2008 (for another “must Google” try the real-time coverage of the Mumbai disaster - staggering).
Its presence is not only of interest because of its novelty, but it also lends further structure to our concept of Twitter’s social significance. The fact that administrative bodies have entered into the fray definitely signals something bigger than the previously mooted “e-message board theory”.
With this mind, surely Twitter is a grand forum in the Roman tradition; where conversations held by governmental, commercial and social participants are floated on the same air?
Well, maybe, just maybe, that is it. The wool from our cardigan would have been woven into a far more complex suit, but we’re left with a fine article nonetheless.
But, as with so many internet phenomena, the key tenets are not so easily assembled and to parade this conclusion around as the absolute truth would again be demonstrating chronic simplification. Twitter just isn’t that clear-cut.
There are a whole host of other Twitter-ish concepts that, having melted into its fundaments, completely tangle the "grand forum" definition.
Firstly, we might consider that, unlike almost every social network to go before it, Twitter encourages lop-sided interaction. Tweeters can follow exactly who they like without having to be followed in return. Vice-versa, users can accumulate a whole host of followers to whom they need never pay the slightest hint of attention. This is clearly not the sort of behaviour that would go down at all well in our Roman forum.
Secondly, we should pay at least some mind to hashtagging. These little articles have caused a real stir in the blogosphere. In the tradition of all great ingenuity, hashtagging is an idea that is incredibly simple in concept but hugely impressive in practice.
To clarify, a hashtag is simply a “#” demarcated phrase placed at the end of a tweet, used to label the content of the post. For example I might tweet: “Thought Sir’alan was a bit rough last night. Probably just needs a hug. #Theapprentice”.
Now, as mentioned, this is all pretty uncomplicated, but its social effect deserves a little more attention. Using Twitter Search, surfers can enter tags to see organised lists of the global chatter surrounding their chosen topics. The forum analogy takes another blow here, as we can now see that Twitter’s conversations are even more uniquely textured than originally thought: they are selectable by subject matter alone.
Then, thirdly, there is its adaptability: its facility to be used for unpredicted ends. As a magnificent side-effect of its indistinct purpose, Twitter has become rather elastic: changing and evolving in-line with the needs of its users.
Facebook’s apps are used for specific, pre-designated purposes. The same is true for the functions of Bebo, Linked-In and Orcut. On Twitter, however, things are far less restrictive. Not all of its functionality is handed out in neat little pre-considered packages, where all conversational eventualities are provided for and guided. Supplied with a natty openly interpretable information architecture, the Tweeter is free to make of the space exactly what he/she wants. A fine example of this is made by the inveterate Tweeter, Steven Fry (or Uncle Steve, as he is known in my flat). The traditional mechanisms of the site suggest that if a user was following someone and wanted to be followed in return, he/she would send them a direct message to request this. Uncle Steve, however, has found himself in a social situation that inhibits such tactics: he has 427,242followers. If everyone that wanted to be followed by him adhered to the orthodox practice, then his account would become an unmanageable nightmare. In reaction, Stevie has taken the incentive and found a way to use Twitter’s undefined structure to his own benefit. Using his comment wall, he simply asks all of those that want to be seen by him to post an update labelled with a “followmestephen#” hashtag. In this way, all the great Frymaster need do, is use Twitter Search to see a tidily arranged list of every single one of his requesting followers: their pleas taking up space on their own walls, not his.
Beyond this example, it is clear that Twitter will continue to evolve and grow as the whims of its users fragment and multiply. What makes this especially striking is its eerie reflection of the freedoms of “real world” interaction.
At this point, insisting on the integrity of the “grand forum” concept might seem a little churlish. Perhaps we should look towards an entirely separate definition - one not yet mentioned.
Bearing all of the above observations in mind, I would argue that Twitter offers a glimpse of what a truly democratised global scale e-conversation looks like.
So that’s it; not a pretty catchphrase but as near to a discreet designation it's currently possible to get myself.
