The polarising effects and affects of the #carbontax have caught my attention recently, but more surprisingly has been where I have read the most coherent arguments.
Twitter has been excruciatingly painful to watch. The 140 character length is just the right size to repeat a leaders one liner in their latest presser, but lacks the length to have or include (f)actual information. In this instance Twitter has become nothing more than another distribution channel for the political media.
On the other hand Facebook which I commonly compare to MySpace in relation to matters of importance, has emerged to be a source of coherent, complex and constructive informative discussion.
With a few more lines available to them, I have seen friends on Facebook describe their perspective on the events and I think that is what is most important to note here. They are talking from their perspective, they aren’t re-tweeting someone, they are writing how they have interpreted the information being pushed at them.
I have seen similar things in relation to #NOTW scandal as well. People discussing its impacts on Facebook. Journalists, media outlets and their supporters crying foul on twitter.
You could almost say the same about large portions of #GOBACKSBS where conversation on Twitter was almost completely one sided for large portions of the showing. Yet on Facebook I had a few friends who felt more comfortable stating different points of few amongst friends, as opposed to facing the barrage of hatred aimed at them should they have said similar things on Twitter.
I am not convinced these are isolated cases. Discussion on twitter can be so easily swayed by anonymous accounts and a quick one liner which doesn’t necessarily represent the whole truth.
This could be the crux of Twitters failure to be a valuable data collection tool. Facebook has some authority because you can assign ownership and link data collected back to a more reliable source.
Perhaps this is where Google + might have gotten it right. They are enabling sharing with those in your network without restriction which also provides authoritative recognisable sources? (In so far as you include those sources in your circles)
Note, I am by no means suggesting any organisation particularly Governments should intrude on a person’s personal network – but perhaps something in between is needed to ensure that when consultations are held, they are done so with higher level of genuity (Urban Dictionary, Def 1) than perhaps Twitter is capable of providing.
Twitter’s concise nature may be the one thing which restricts its growth.
Happy to discuss – but maybe not on twitter.
