my gripes aside, he does raise the same interesting point that boyd did in her article on blogging. namely, that twitter can be "precisely what you want it to be".
pogue defines his twitter as being useful for somethings that would not "merit a full blog or article post." to that i would say, 'does a blog really have to be that involved in order for you to consider posting it?'
having all of these technologies that do, essentially, the same thing (facebook's status message is comparable to a twitter feed, twitter feeds resemble short musings in a blog post...) seems redundant (eliminating redundancies is what i do. i've got the cataloger's gene.). i can justify having a facebook that displays personal information within a network of people who are likely to need that information (it's been a helpful tool for making dinner/drink dates with old friends. whether or not they showed up for those meetings is another story all together.) in addition to having a blog where i upload content (something more involved than that status message). they connect me to people in different ways. the facts are on facebook (name, location, phone, email. leave a brief comment at the sound of the tone), the thoughts are on the blog (the who, what, where, when and why of my life. no character limit).
but, it looks like i've just talked myself into a corner trying to define what these technologies are. in trying to make them distinct things, i've uncovered that, yes, they can be anything.
you end on such an interesting idea, that in trying to define things we often find their relationships to others...
ReplyDelete