It's interesting to watch how quickly our Web 2.0 tools are changing, changing us, changing the way we communicate, and being changed by us. And how each step feels like a revolution, and yet, usually, isn't.
The latest thing is Twitter 2.0, as I would call it. Nothing has actually changed in the software, but the way people are using it has. What was originally a presence and status tool has become a communication, networking, information delivery and spamming tool. And it's creating its own unique problems--which probably aren't that unique, if you stand back from them--and now, its own rules.
Shel Israel, co-author of Naked Conversations, is the first I've noticed who is trying to wrestle with the new realities.
He starts out:
I'm a passionate about Twitter. I spend more time in on it than in any other social media venue. Twitter has been good to me. It is the source of leads for my text and video blogs, not to mention several very nice consulting and speaking offers.
This has created what Shel calls "the most up close and personal of social media". Shel uses Twitter as a place to communicate with fellow twitterers and meet new people within a "small neighborhood, one where it's safe to speak out, where strangers are scrutinized by locals this all happens at a certain easygoing pace."
But then he goes on to talk about the "new wave of adopters coming in". I suspect we've all noticed this: legions of "followers" who add your twitter feed ("tweets") to their list. The worry is that now the conversation Shel was having with his small neighborhood is being listened to by a legion of outsiders who may or may not be anonymous.
Twitter, it should be pointed out, allows various options: You can be private, or you can allow anyone to follow your tweets, or you can vet who follows you. If someone follows you, it kind of behoves you to check out their tweets, if not to actually follow them, then at least to get a sense about whether the person following you is the sort of person you want to have following you.
Shel has come up with what he calls his "Twitter Follow Policy:"
- If I do not know who you are, or what you look like, or where you are coming from I will not follow you.
- With very few exceptions, I will not follow brands, candidates, causes or company names. I wish to talk with humans, not brand icons, neither surveys nor bots. If you are a real person & you are passionate about your work, then I embrace you. If you are a Direct Marketer using Twitter to push you brand into my forehead, I will block you.
- Even if you are a real person, I may not follow you. I need to see that you are talking either about topics or people I care about.
- If you disagree with me, do it under your own name and I will respect you. If you personally insult me, I will block you. If you are consistently unpleasant or just boring, I will unfollow or block you.
- With extremely rare exception, I will not follow anonymous Tweeters.
Wise stuff. But as some of the commenters on his blog post point out, people use Twitter for different reasons. Not everyone follows Shel (or to a much more modest extent, me) because they want a conversation with me. I don't follow others for the conversation, necessarily. Many people don't want to be followed, just like many people read blogs but don't necessarily blog.
The problem here is that Twitter is a great tool that has already broken out of the constraints of its creators' imagination. But now it's created uses that may conflict with each other and create fresh problems, such as those experienced by Shel who see the informal networks with fuzzy but distinct 'village limits' undermined by outsiders who don't know the 'rules.'
I applaud the new lease of life that Twitter has been given with this new kind of usage. In some ways it is a striking counterbalance to what I believe is the failure of Facebook to evolve beyond the huge surge of a few months back; I've noticed that usage in my little world have fallen off quite dramatically since the beginning of the year. Facebook will eventually become a sort of 'profile cemetry' unless these users are convinced it represents more than a novelty 'old friend discovery' tool.
Twitter has stepped into the gap left here by the declining appeal, and lack of direct communication that presence tools offer (Jaiku et al) and the walled-garden, asynchronoous web page to web page/email world of Facebook. Twitter, via delivery mechanisms like Google Talk, have colonised a space that is "instant messaging with social characteristics."
Shel's approach is a smart one. Though I wonder how many of these kinds of policies we'll have to come up with as the landscape continues to evolve.