The Impact of Social Networking: Twitter Is Changing History

In the New York Times article, "U.S. Steps Gingerly Into Tumult in Iran - NYTimes.com" you can see the impact that social networking is having.

What happened in Iran?

SImply put, people are using social networking to report what is happening around them. They are getting around government blockage and media filtering and putting out raw information on events. Text messages are being blasted onto Twitter in real time. Videos are being uploaded to YouTube direct from the people that are in the middle of history.

Jon Williams, the BBC world news editor, made a great comment, “The days when regimes can control the flow of information are over.”

When the government is asking social networking sites to delay maintenance, you know something is changing. As stated in the article, "social networking as a new arrow in its diplomatic quiver."

And yet 90% of the junk on these social networking have nothing to do with history. Seriously, I don't need to know someone just went to the crapper, and no, I don't need to see a video of it. Unless you are Stan Marsh, you just ate at P.F. Chang's and put down a 9 Kouric sized number 2.

-tg

I think Conan O'Brien had it best "In the year 3000, You Tube, Twitter and Facebook will merge, becoming, 'You Twit Face'."

what you are really saying is that the jurno's are Screwed as we don't need them to tell us that people are going to get shot on the street, using a pathetic over exagerated tone, like this "Twitter Is Changing History" . about time

I don't use these services i'm with techgnome. to get anything good you need to spend hours looking at crap.

Well I don't know that Twitter itself is changing history. However it is part of the shift of the individual as the primary news source for real-time information.

I think this situation in Iran is an example of where a single individual now has the power to draw the attention of thousands of people. While certain stories or countries may be off limits to large news organizations such as the BBC, it becomes very difficult to stop a single person from uploading a video to YouTube.

While you gain in real-time, unfiltered news, you also lose in the sense that it's not edited. I don't care that your latte at Starbucks didn't have foam, or that you're bored at work. Also, posting your off-key acoustic rendition of Don't Stop Believing on YouTube doesn't make you a celeberity.

That's where I see the danger in something like Twitter... not it's impact on history (what's going on in Iran is certanly history in the making).. but rather it's impact on the individual to know when to turn it off. It's become an addictive stream-of-conscienceness that may end up having an negative impact in the long run. I've heard of couples that will text each other messages... FROM ACROSS THE ROOM! Seriously, technology has become so pervasive in our loves and society, it's sometimes hard to remember what did we do for communication 20 years ago? I still get most of my news from the TV as well as print newspaper. The only thing I get online on a regular basis is the weather. And as long as I work in an office, that office will never be truly 100% paperless - oh they can try.... but I will still resort to pen and paper when I need to.

I agree with ElP, I don't think Twitter is changing history... what's going on in Iran would be going on even if something like Twitter or YouTube didn't exist. What it's doing is enabling the rest of the world to SEE the history in the making. In that sense, I see it as a good thing. And ElP is right, "posting your off-key acoustic rendition of Don't Stop Believing on YouTube doesn't make you a celeberity" .. for that you need a golf ball retriever stick.

-tg

Perfect example of Twitter gone bad... read this in the local paper.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10260183-83.html

-tg

You can't change history - you can only change the present and see if that congeals to be come "history". Twitter won't do this but it does point the way to what will - something along the lines of a live version of Google streetview imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

it's sometimes hard to remember what did we do for communication 20 years ago?

---

I dont remember because I wasnt born then :D

but seriously though, I agree that Twitter is a bag of ****

And next month's cool application for the technically challenged will be ..... no doubt currently in development ;)

I'm not so worried about the volume of pointless garbage. That make's it unusable but it doesn't make it dangerous. What worries me is that anyone can post anything and people tend to take it as fact. That's a problem with the whole internet for me, and wikipoedia in particular, but anything like a blog or twitter (which is essentially an insta-blog) is highly prone. There's real danger in that aspect of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

I agree that Twitter is a bag of ****

---

Twitter is a great tool. The hammer is a great tool, but a million morons banging anything they can get their hands on with a hammer doesn't do anyone any good. Unfortunately the impact that tools like Twitter can have on history will be severely reduced because of the million morons who clutter it with rubbish, thus making it difficult for htose who are interested to find anything useful and also making it more likely that people will just switch off. Unfortunately the rampant "because I can" attitude that the masses have towards technology renders potentially useful tools far less usefuil, if not completely useless. If the morons spent more time reading the worthwhile information available rather than adding to the volume of useless information available then we would all be enriched... maybe even them.

I posted this because I can. ;)

I have to say I didnt realise that there was actually ANY useful information on Twitter. I thought the entire purpose of it was for people to just put "Im off to work", "im eating some crisps", "Im going to town" etc etc. Aside from these messages from Iran (which is certainly not what Twitter was designed for) what else is there on there that makes twitter a "great tool" ? I'm not just arguing, im actually curious because I honestly thought it was designed to just have morons posting rubbish on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

I have to say I didnt realise that there was actually ANY useful information on Twitter. I thought the entire purpose of it was for people to just put "Im off to work", "im eating some crisps", "Im going to town" etc etc. Aside from these messages from Iran (which is certainly not what Twitter was designed for) what else is there on there that makes twitter a "great tool" ? I'm not just arguing, im actually curious because I honestly thought it was designed to just have morons posting rubbish on it.

---

I don't use Twitter, partly because of the morons and the rubbish. The other part is because I don't even like communicating with people I know so why would I want to communicate with people I don't know? :ehh: I have read, in more traditional media, about various useful bits of information that are available on Twitter. I'm sick of seeing pictures of Brad & Ange every time I enter a shop but I can't say that magazines are a bad thing because I do enjoy my monthly PC Authority fix. :)

It's just occurred to me that Twitter isn't changing history. It's not making history either (I'll admit that last statement is arguable, but hear me out). History happens, Twitter or no Twitter. What happened in Iran was going to happen. What Twitter has done in this case was to EXPOSE history (and in some odd fashion, record it) as it was happening. (That's where "Twitter makes history" comes in, in that it's the first social networking site to do something to this extent.)

jmc - I can shoot my foot off with a .22 as well... just because I can. What a great tool, eh?

chris - If I tweeted, here's what mine would read: "On VBF. Funny stuff today. Don't think Chris got jmc's sarcasm."

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chris128

I have to say I didnt realise that there was actually ANY useful information on Twitter. I thought the entire purpose of it was for people to just put "Im off to work", "im eating some crisps", "Im going to town" etc etc. Aside from these messages from Iran (which is certainly not what Twitter was designed for) what else is there on there that makes twitter a "great tool" ? I'm not just arguing, im actually curious because I honestly thought it was designed to just have morons posting rubbish on it.

---

Depends who you follow. Somtimes you find someone knowledgable in a particular industry who puts up interesting links or their blog posts which I find informative.

The marketing side of me likes watching consumers interact with brands like Starbucks or JetBlue on Twitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

I don't use Twitter.....because I don't even like communicating with people I know so why would I want to communicate with people I don't know?

---

Amen...you are my new hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

I do enjoy my monthly PC Authority fix. :)

---

Yeah, me too, but I hear they are doing an expose on Brad and Angelina's surfing habits next month.

"Somtimes you find someone knowledgable in a particular industry who puts up interesting links or their blog posts which I find informative." << So subscribe to their RSS Feed... thats' what I do - If I even do that much. Usually I'll just bookmark the site, then as part of my daily morning routine (while the coffee cools) I go through my bookmarks and see what's new. Most of the influential people I follow only post once in a while - they are busy being influential. Seriously, are people that starved for information?

Twitter - instantaneous cheese-sandwich blogs with built-in Ping. that's all it really is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcihinney

I don't use Twitter.....because I don't even like communicating with people I know so why would I want to communicate with people I don't know?

---

Heck, half the time, communication in our team is via IM and not face-to-face. And we're all in the same hall.


-tg

Quote:

---

What Twitter has done in this case was to EXPOSE history

---

But exposing it does mean it affects it. Particularly in the context of repressive regimes for whom surpression of undesirable information and opinion is a survival mechanism.

The act of observation changes the observed. It's all a bit quantum.

I'm playing devils advocate here though. I despise twitter and all it's ilk. I hate blogs too. And My Space and Face Book and all the other forums (used in the true definition rather than the webby one) which uninformed, self indugent pin heads use to push their unwanted opinions and lives at me. I'm overstating a bit, of course. There is some useful stuff out there but it escapes me why most of these people believe I (or anyone else) would give a toss.

On the other hand do quite like forums (in the webby sense of the word). I like that someone can ask a question and get a response. I like that I can help someone when they want me to and someone can help me when I need them to. The dynamic is the exact opposite.

Tried twitter, got bored, tried blogging, turns out its really time wasting in disguise. I do however thing wikipedia is an understated phenomenon though and one that will get better as it matures.

Anyway thats enough from me, im trying to get a job so my five mins time wasting is up!

I guess this is going off topic a little but I really dont get Wikipedia... At first I thought it was just an online encyclopedia which is fine but then I read something about the idea that anyone can post articles and even edit articles that are already on there... If they can do that then whats to stop people just putting total crap on there or overwriting a decent article with rubbish :S

two things - 1) some one else coming along and correcting it. and 2) They actually do have a staff that tracks the changes and if something is clearly outrageous and wrong, will revert the page to it's previous entry.

-tg

Take a look at the Scientology Wiki. I understand that that one is frequently altered by people pushing an agenda. I rather doubt the same could be said about an entry like Francis Bacon, or Sterling Engines. The issue is that this social media has no responsibility, which pushes more responsibility onto the reader. It is up to YOU to determine what is fact and what is fiction, even though, if you are turning to the site for information, you have clearly indicated that you lack the means to decide for certain.

One manifestation of this is Iran. While there was lots of information going on, and organization going on, via social networking means, there is also lots of evidence that the govenment was not sitting on the sideline. Instead, the government was adding misinformation to misdirect people and disrupt the protests. A modest amount of that is quite dangerous, as people tend to trust the information as long as they don't percieve the flaws. Once there is sufficient misinformation out there, the value of the social networking site is so poisoned as to render the site meaningless.

On the other hand, the massive noise to signal ratio that everybody reports for Twitter, Faceplant, and so forth, might mean that people become a bit more skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff. No evidence of that, though. People seem as willing to consume the one as they are the other.

"if you are turning to the site for information, you have clearly indicated that you lack the means to decide for certain." << Oh I don't know about that. It's not usually my first stop for things, but some times I do use it as a simple spring board to locating other more reliable information. Now, if you use it as your SOLE means of information, then yes, you may have problems.

"the government was adding misinformation to misdirect people" << Isn't thatthe government's role in general? Treat us like shrooms? Keep us in the dark and feed use carp?

"might mean that people become a bit more skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff." << Thanks, I needed a laugh...

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

"if you are turning to the site for information, you have clearly indicated that you lack the means to decide for certain." << Oh I don't know about that. It's not usually my first stop for things, but some times I do use it as a simple spring board to locating other more reliable information. Now, if you use it as your SOLE means of information, then yes, you may have problems.

---

I thought someone might call me on that. I can only think of three reasons to read something: You want to know, you have nothing better to do, you got lost. Oh wait, I read some pamphlets for entertainment value. I guess there are times when the information is known false, but read anyways. Still, the general point is valid.

Quote:

---

"the government was adding misinformation to misdirect people" << Isn't thatthe government's role in general? Treat us like shrooms? Keep us in the dark and feed use carp?

---

The Epimenedes Paradox suggests that I can't answer that.

Quote:

---

"might mean that people become a bit more skilled at separating the wheat from the chaff." << Thanks, I needed a laugh...

-tg

---

I am an optimist. Though, to be honest, I'm not as optimistic as THAT.

KiwiDexter might have it right - twitter is a tool for the technically challenged, the media endorses it by celebrating the constant stream of mediocrity, (much like Apple news). Twitter news is almost like "You know how to use a computer and communicate with jillions of people around the world, you are so powerful!"

Its main purpose is to give you a feeling of self importance. Of course nobody cares about what you did, but that isn't going to stop you. 10&#37; of twitter users produce 90% of twitter's posts. That says a lot.

Taking Iran into perspective - twitter is not presenting facts in any way. You don't know what happened with the election there, you only know what the media told you which - surprise, surprise - came from some twitter posts which supported our negative view of Iran. I don't know what happened, but what I mean is, really, if someone posted about voting for Ahmadinejad, you wouldn't have heard about it.

This is a bit about propaganda and a bit about a shiny new 'technology' supporting that propaganda.