tom willerer . com

thoughts on twitter: editorializing

In a post titled, “New Gatekeepers Twitter, Apple, YouTube need Transparency in Editorial Picks”, MediaShift nicely summarizes what’s been happening:

Twitter began listing Suggested Users a couple months ago for newbies who weren’t following anyone and didn’t get how the service worked. By highlighting popular Twitter feeds from news organizations such as the New York Times and celebrities such as Britney Spears, Twitter hoped to hook new users. The problem? There was no explanation of how anyone made it onto such a list, and all the featured users started racking up huge numbers of followers.

Then…

Mahalo CEO Jason Calacanis made a kind of indecent proposal to Twitter, saying he would pay $500,000 to be a Suggested User for three years — equating it with a Super Bowl ad. Twitter didn’t bite.

And then…

Blogger and tech guru Dave Winer decided to start his own Twitter-like microblogging service, and was upset about the way Twitter went about picking Suggested Users.

Now that we’re caught up, I have a few thoughts.

1. Why do we care if they editorialize?  Are any of these services claiming to be “fair and balanced”?  Besides, it’s actually interesting to following some of their suggested users.
2. Comparing being a suggested user on Twitter to a super bowl ad is ridiculous.  If a Super Bowl ad is a fire-hose, then Twitter is a leaking water balloon.  Seriously.
3. I’m all for transparency, but I think it’s fairly obvious why twitter is suggesting those users - they’re popular / celebrities.
4. Twitter isn’t like email, as some suggest.  Txt mssgs are like email.

File this under ramblings.