What this article seems to portray is that retweeting is the same as marching in front of Parliament. The fact is in spite of the heavy retweeting, although it gained the attention of people for a short time, its actual impact is not much more than #MUSICmonday or #Followfriday. The idea that changing the world happens by copy and pasting is something ridiculous - look at Iran for example. I fear that social change over social networks will just be style over substance, further adding to the soundbite culture we live in.
It's good that such an issue is brought into the limelight but the fact is on twitter with just 140 characters there's such a detachment to the realities of a serious issue that it all becomes trivial.
> The fact is in spite of the heavy retweeting, although it gained the attention of people for a short time, its actual impact is not much more than #MUSICmonday or #Followfriday
Normally yes, but in this case it nudged other news outlets such as the BBC to report on the story and prompted a debate in Parliament on if these gag orders are too easy to abuse. I would say that's some positive outcome, even if it does little to help those who were affected by the toxic waste.
Normally yes, but in this case it nudged other news outlets such as the BBC to report on the story
The BBC reported about the Trafigura case in depth on Newsnight* many weeks ago. Inevitably journalists would have had to mention it as it's something affecting their profession.
*One of the few good news programmes around in my opinion along with World Service news.
Yes! Twitter has singlehandedly changed the game! Before twitter, people didn't communicate online. And you couldn't leak stuff and have it indexed by google.
Of course now everyone, law firms, governments, corporations monitor twitter all day, and base policies and legal precedents on what is trending and what isn't.
It's only a matter of time until we do away with the outdated elections and vote using hashtags.
I have a feeling that a lot of the attention Twitter is getting is because Twitter generates a lot of attention because of the attention they're getting.
In other words, once the novelty wears off, then what?
If Twitter generates 10N units of hype for every N units of substance, it's a huge advantage. If everyone's paying the same cost for their substance, Twitter's getting the highest possible return. It may never live up to the hype, but it'll be more than it would have been without the hype.
"Yes! Twitter has singlehandedly changed the game! Before twitter, people didn't communicate online. And you couldn't leak stuff and have it indexed by google."
No-one's saying that. Twitter has increased the extent and intensity of that communication. And that is incredibly important, especially when you're dealing with PR (and i'm sure that's no the only area).
Well called. Every time I see a story like this (and there have been quite a few of them recently) I always think about how irrelevant the actual specific platform is... The same thing would (and likely did) happen just simply via blogs, wikipedia etc...
I just hope that eventually people stop being so excitable...
Except that it happens a lot quicker than it ever did on Wikipedia or blogs, and reaches a much wider audience now.
Here's the thing people like us tend to forget - the power of Twitter is mobility. Yes, blogs and wikis are powerful publishing platforms for people viewing them on computers.
Twitter is viewable on the most common device in the world, mobile phones. There are very few mobile phones in the world incapable of getting access to Twitter, making it potentially the most widely available social network on the planet.
No computer required.
Add in all that other media democratization stuff, and that's why you get a lot of the hoopla around it you never saw with Wikis and blogs.
What do you get out of snarking towards things that really aren't worth snarking towards? There is no live search as valuable as Twitter's. Google doesn't do live search. Stop making up shit that the article said and then making fun of it, especially when so many TechCrunch articles are saying stupid shit.
It indexes quickly, but that's not live search. I can't pick a name and see what people around the world are saying about it. Google's just never designed anything to do that. Twitter has. So while the Internet's existed for a while, this live feedback has not.
Difference is, twitter is often far less useful, since it doesn't have any notion of trustworthiness (yet). No PageRank. (Although afaik they're working on something like that). Also automated tweets are more of a problem than with Google. (PageRank also does well to get rid of the automated spam)
The trending tags on twitter just mean lots of people re-tweeted something. It's the equivalent of emails that say you should forward it to 100 friends to get good luck. In this case it was "You should be outraged by this, re-tweet it!". But the effect is the same.
Or it could just be twitter bots doing the retweeting.
The trending tags on twitter just mean lots of people re-tweeted something. It's the equivalent of emails that say you should forward it to 100 friends to get good luck. In this case it was "You should be outraged by this, re-tweet it!". But the effect is the same.
So what's the problem with the link that shows up in the google search? itpints is giving me twitter, boston.com, and the guardian, among others. The feature you seem to like is the ability and lack of self-consciousness for people to say 'something' that Twitter allows, rather than the live search it has. I think if mibbit searched conversations, that would do the same thing and have the possibility to be more valuable.
Live and realtime is instant, as in less than a second or two and at most a minute (in certain contexts).
Friendfeed, for instance, is a live search engine. Update your GChat status or share something on Google Reader. The time to update and be indexed by the main search engine on Friendfeed is seconds.
So what. Some random facts: The CIA did very bad things in Guatemala, Shell did very bad things in Nigeria, Nestle did very bad things in Venezuela. Those are just 3 small examples. Many people know. But nothing happens.
Twitter is not going to change the world. You have to take action.
Twitter is good for feeling like you're taking action. Every tweet can be its own mini-protest. Only I expect that a bunch of people chatting on the Internet is a lot less menacing than picketers, rallies and demonstrations.
I don't buy from Shell (Myanmar) or from Nestle (baby-milk) ... I don't know about the CIA. Sometimes I don't have a choice, I'm not militant about it - also I can't be as ethical as I'd like with my shopping as we're poor; but money talks.
I'm a little confused on the story behind this since I originally read it: Trafigura dumped toxic waste and tried to reach a settlement regarding the dumpage. There was something that happened in Parliament and for some reason the Guardian wasn't allowed to write about the actions in Parliament because of a gag order.
If someone could be so kind as to answer the following questions:
Why was this in Parliament?
What was the question about this in Parliament?
Who requested the gag order?
Under what precedent was the gag order issued?
Would the courts likely have upheld the gag after an initial hearing?
4. An injunction prevents publication on any number of grounds, usually pending ongoing legal cases
5. An appeal -- the Guardian were set to appeal this afternoon until Carter-Ruck pulled out -- would almost certainly have gone in the Guardian's favour. But had the Guardian published before the injunction was lifted, the courts would definitely have upheld a prosecution against them, however.
It's good that such an issue is brought into the limelight but the fact is on twitter with just 140 characters there's such a detachment to the realities of a serious issue that it all becomes trivial.