

How MicroPublishing Is Killing The Nuances of Knowledge - dineshraju
http://coconutheadsets.com/2009/05/03/how-micropublishing-is-killing-the-nuances-of-knowledge/

======
bluefish
This is all typical technology-is-killing-society-and-making-you-stupider
bombastic drivel. When the mail system was instituted in the US a part of the
population claimed it would be the end of modern society. That it would
eliminate face to face interaction and increase indecency as a delivery method
for porn (it did do the latter). Same with the telephone. But here we are,
Twitter isn't going to destroy society, make us stupider or less passionate.
It's just another way of receiving information. In 140 characters.

~~~
dkarl
I think it has more to do with SXSW Interactive, which is what inspired his
post. 80% of SXSW is a bunch of people who want to get rich or famous on the
web paying hundreds of dollars for the chance to sit googly-eyed in the same
room as a few people who _have_ become rich or famous on the web, or who at
least worked at a company that made somebody _else_ rich or famous. It's
inherently boring. The fact that it's nominally about technology can't rescue
it.

I managed to see a couple of interesting panel meetings -- yes, exactly two --
when I attended in 2008. They were quite good, and since I got a combined
Interactive/Film pass I didn't feel like I got ripped off. (I did feel like I
was living beyond my means -- hence my non-return this year.) But I spent most
of the panel meetings googling the panelists trying to find something
interesting to read about their work, while they answered questions from
adoring fans (and from each other) by saying, "Well, what you _really_ have to
do, which I really learned the hard way at MyFamousWebSite.com, is give the
customers what they want." "Yes, that's right Jim, especially when they don't
know what they want." "<appreciative chuckle>." This drivel at panel meetings
with awfully interesting and high-concept titles. I'm not surprised SXSW
Interactive inspired some reflection about the trivialization of human
knowledge.

Half the panelists were just promoters or PR hacks representing a company.
They may have been the original founding CEOs yadda yadda yadda but they were
acting as PR hacks, present solely to project the right image for their
company and convert their minor fame into web traffic. _Some_ panelists who
were there flogging their companies recognized that they had an obligation to
the people who paid to see them, and actually said interesting things and
tried to answer interesting questions. That's actually an effective way of
promoting a company, if anybody's wondering. I don't care _what_ a guy talks
about -- his new product or alpaca cheese -- I'm going to check out his
company and their products if and only if he gives me something worth thinking
about. Partly that's because I want to reward him for being a good speaker,
but partly it's a natural mechanism: anything substantial enough that it can't
be completely digested on the spot will pop up later for further mulling over,
which is a logical occasion for finding out more about the speaker and his
company.

------
DannoHung
People actually have serious conversations on Twitter?

I just chat with friends and look for links.

~~~
Ardit20
I don't even use it at all

------
tezza
Worrying about declining:

:: IQs :: Attention spans :: Standards of teaching :: "Nuances of Knowledge"

is a pre-occupation soley of educated middle classers.

Other people are busy doing what they always did,(inanely communicating) just
via any new method.

As an guideline to the mean, here in the UK hairdressers and taxi drivers are
regarded as the benchmark "Man on the Street"[1].

How many Hairdressers and Cabbies Tweet??

Then ask yourself if they _all_ tweeted, would that materially effect how
"Nuanced their Knowledge" was?

\-------------

[1] <http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=9053>

------
gojomo
I like the analogy made here between errors/unpredictability caused by
numerical rounding, and 'rounding' thoughts down to 140 characters.

------
sho
10 points for using the term "availability cascade".

However, I wouldn't be too worried about Twitter. I do not see it having the
significance to the nature of conversation that the author presumes. It's just
another option, of easy to use but short format broadcast messaging, and I am
sure that people will adjust their expectations in the fullness of time. It's
really early days yet.

------
ajkirwin
Twitter is no better or worse than say.. firing off a quick email to someone.
Or a short telephone call.

Or any other means of quick, social communication.

