The Twitter Effect

As the above dictates, that is the very reason why these awful, dreadful 'social networking' websites should be banned. If you want to talk to someone, why not do it by actually writing with your own handwriting [I know that is difficult for the youngsters nowadays to do so] and put it in the post. It does take longer for a reply but at least you will get some fact and interesting titbits in private correspondence.

Who else would be interested in:
"08:00 Broke wind. 08.01 It stinks. 08.02 Picked my nose. 08.03 Making myself a nice cup of tea." Who is interested? I am not.
And these fabricated news stories at such an unfathomable scale! - - by the way, Sky News employing a Twitter correspondent. Oh yes, I forgot why I don't bother watching Sky News now [!]

Yes, it is harsh but these social networking [what a politically correct word] websites are not welcome. And I see these TV networks are on them. No surprises Sky are on, but ITN? Come on, ITN, see sense.

What a funny post. Perhaps if you'd actually read any of this thread your post would at least seem logical.

As a matter of fact, I have read this thread. I agree with some people's views but I was adding my view as well. We are better off without Twitter, Facebook etc. It is pushed down our throats unnecessarily, that is all I am saying, or in this case, writing.

Social networks may not be welcome in your eyes, but the millions and millions of people who use them every day would probably disagree with that assertion.

http://images.jonathan-rothwell.co.uk/hw_small.png

There. Took me less than twenty seconds to scribble down on an index card I had lying around. Easy, fast. Not 'difficult' at all.

As for the post... well, these days we have this remarkable thing called e-mail , which is like the post, except

1. it's free
   
2. you don't have to write it out all over again if you make a mistake because of something called the backwards delete key
   
3. it doesn't get lost, found, lost, delivered to the wrong address, lost, found, stuck in a delivery office, lost again, and then dumped into the canal by a disgruntled postman
   
4. it is still possible to put in little tidbits-there's no technical restriction on doing so

Not only have you insulted the intelligence of an entire demographic, but you have also demonstrated yourself to be ignorant and judgemental on this topic.



Given that you have grossly over-exaggerated the banality of most Twitter conversations, I find it impossible to have a reasoned debate with you on this aspect without first asking you to actually visit the Twitter web site and view some peoples' Twitter streams, such as Stephen Fry's, Charlie Brooker and Krishnan Guru-Murphy.

Hoax news stories are nothing new.


What would you call them then? The word 'social' does not necessarily imply PC sanitisation. It accurately describes what it is: a system by which people can create networks of relationships, socially.


Maybe not to you, but to the millions of people who do use them, they are very welcome.

Also, no-one's shoving it down your throat. You're welcome to steer well clear of it. I only got a Facebook profile around a month ago, and even then it's only a placeholder. Let me re-iterate that: just because a news organisation uses Twitter as a news-gathering source (with fact checking, of course), it doesn't force you to use it as well.

Frankly no.

Earthquakes happen all the time, all day every day. Unless the one in Peru is a particually big one why would I be interested.

The Volcano is being covered by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7960825.stm but again like an earthquake, is it really that rare or interesting. If there's good pictures of lava, smoke and ash then people are interested

The fire and the stand off are really local stores at best, and are of virtually no interest to someone in the UK. The fact that 6 hours after you posted about them, there is no sign of either on Google News confirms how irrelevant they are

Just because something is happening doesn't make it of interest. The art of news editing is filtering out the stuff that is irrelevant or not interesting to your audience.

It's all very well to see a news feed like that and go think that an earthquake in Peru is significant but then put it in context, it was a 5.5 and there were 2 others stronger today, one in the South China Sea and the other in India: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.html#listtop

A fire in New York is of no relevance to me, just in the same way that a building fire in London is of no relevance to someone in New York. That is, unless the pictures are particularly unusual or interesting, lots of people are dead or there's a highly suspicious cause

Not all stories deserve a mention on a news programme. Imagine if Sky News ran 'Breaking News' on all of the stories popping up on Twitter.

Goodness me old boy, do you live in the 1930s?

It would be a damn better place if it was.

Just out of interest, and forgive me for asking, but how old are you?

get rid of facebook and replace it with polio and impending war. excellent plan

I wasn't aware that you wrote for the Daily Mail.

Why is the classic knee-jerk response to everything vaguely modern, technological and anti-traditional to "ban it"? Why are you seeing the world only as you WANT to see it, rather than seeing it for what it is?

Many people simply switch their minds off to technology. The classic response is "internet? Oh, I can never be bothered with that, what's wrong with letter writing?" to which I say that you can do both; you can both e-mail and use letters. Letters are more formal, and more reliable, whereas e-mails are faster, can be more concise, and of course are less costly.

I cannot understand why people are not more responsive and more upbeat about new technology. Constantly, ways are being found to improve communication between ourselves, our friends and our family. But some people, like yourself, simply refuse to understand, comprehend or acknowledge anything remotely good about these sites, because of every little incident and evefy little tidbit that gets reported in scaremongering newspapers.

I daresay it's a ltitle rich of you to come onto an internet forum (which is only a few steps away from a social networking site) and give a lecture against social networking sites. I am fully supportive of your right to voice your opinion but not when it's not at all backed up. Was your accusatory tone backed up with any sources other than dull, conservative, traditional, Christian opinions?

Remember what JS Mill said. Society is driven by progress, and if progress does not happen, we will end up with the DULL CONFORMISM OF VICTORIAN SOCIETY. I daresay that's your vision of Utopia, isn't it?

See, 19 years old and I've managed to write all that. Daresay I could write it in my own handwriting if I thought more of you.

Letters are nice to receive, yes. Well most of them are.

I'm struggling to see how your enjoyment of one medium requires you to want to ban all others, though - and moreover, to register your views on an internet message board would seem to be, at best, hypocritical.

I found myself reluctant to sign up for Social Networking sites at first, (and I'm sure you'll explain what is "politically correct" about such a phrase), because I felt it may commit me to constant updating or tweeting, or somesuch.

But of course, it doesn't.

As it happens I've started to quite enjoy posting little "titbits" now and then - but I'm under no obligation to do so, and neither are you - and yet, here you are.

A confusing situation, really, to see someone who talks like a luddite posting his views on the internet.