<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Twitter on Bit Stories</title>
    <link>https://bitstories.net/tags/twitter/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Twitter on Bit Stories</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo -- 0.148.1</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>Karan Juneja 2005-2026</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +1000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://bitstories.net/tags/twitter/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>You Don&#39;t Get Twitter (Yet)</title>
      <link>https://bitstories.net/2009/04/you-dont-get-twitter-yet/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +1000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://bitstories.net/2009/04/you-dont-get-twitter-yet/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Ok, we get it, you don&amp;rsquo;t get Twitter. &lt;em&gt;But you&amp;rsquo;ve just signed up for it&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And your first &amp;ldquo;twit&amp;rdquo; is something along the lines of &amp;ldquo;No idea why I&amp;rsquo;m here.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That&amp;rsquo;s a good thing - neither does anyone else, and that&amp;rsquo;s what makes it something entirely new, and that&amp;rsquo;s why some people are very excited by it. I&amp;rsquo;m not sure whether this is just another passing fad, but it certainly has exploded over the last few months as its visibility has gone viral.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, we get it, you don&rsquo;t get Twitter. <em>But you&rsquo;ve just signed up for it</em>.</p>
<p>And your first &ldquo;twit&rdquo; is something along the lines of &ldquo;No idea why I&rsquo;m here.&rdquo;</p>
<p>That&rsquo;s a good thing - neither does anyone else, and that&rsquo;s what makes it something entirely new, and that&rsquo;s why some people are very excited by it. I&rsquo;m not sure whether this is just another passing fad, but it certainly has exploded over the last few months as its visibility has gone viral.</p>
<p>When people ask what the point is, I generally point out that until about 6 months ago, Twitter would send updates via SMS straight to your phone, no matter where in the world you were - hence the 140 character limit.</p>
<p>This meant it was an excellent way to send mass updates amongst a group of friends, such as the inanities that made it famous - &ldquo;At Whatever Bar having a beer&rdquo;, &ldquo;sitting at starbucks on main st having a coffee&rdquo;, and such like. It would effectively be a &ldquo;ping&rdquo;, letting people who have explicitly subscribed to your feed know where you were and what you were doing, so if they were nearby you could meet up.</p>
<p>As it got more popular, Twitter turned off SMS updates outside the US, UK, Canada and India, where presumably they have a deal with mobile providers. This took some of the steam out of it internationally, I think, but the increasing presence of internet-enabled phones means that we get around that limitation.</p>
<p>But that&rsquo;s not the point - Twitter&rsquo;s gone way beyond that now, as companies and celebrities pile in, some cynically using it as yet another marketing tool, some genuinely getting involved in a way that they never quite did with blogs.</p>
<p>Many draw comparisons between Facebook and Twitter, especially with Facebook&rsquo;s most recent tweak to their design to make it more focused on twitter-like status updates (albeit without the character limit), but there&rsquo;s a key difference - in Facebook, a relationship is mutual; both sides of the &ldquo;friend&rdquo; link see each other.</p>
<p>Twitter, on the other hand, is a network of one-way relationships - you choose who to follow, but they have no compulsion to &ldquo;follow&rdquo; you too. It&rsquo;s this key difference from Facebook that makes it a more dynamic network, and lends it the more apt &ldquo;microblogging&rdquo; title. But then it&rsquo;s not quite blogging, because it&rsquo;s got a dynamism with replies and direct device updates with its short form that takes it closer to &ldquo;real-time&rdquo;.</p>
<p>Twitter is, if anything, closer to YouTube than Facebook - no-one quite knew what to do with YouTube at first, but people poked around simply because it was there; now YouTube and similar sites make up a significant chunk of internet usage globally. Twitter might not have the same bandwidth impact, but by bringing the web-2.0-read-write-web that one step closer to real-time, it represents yet another shift in how the internet is used to communicate.</p>
<p>Sign up - the web is changing apace.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
