What is Twitter, and how do I make it go away?

the internets, ,

When I first heard about Twitter a few years ago, it was easy to ignore as part of the background noise of new Web 2.0 properties. In fact, I felt justified in my decision to delay adopting Twitter by a blog post titled “Top Ten Reasons Why Web 2.0 Sucks,” which included the challenge to “walk outside your door and try to find a Twitter user… You’ve got six hours. Go. Trust me, we’re talking to ourselves.” The author was right.

Nowadays, however, it wouldn’t take you more than 10 minutes to find a Twitter user. (Ok, maybe only if you’re in a very densely populated area, but still.) When I finally caved and setup my Twitter account two weeks ago (initiating it with the same skepticism and reluctance I used to launch this blog), a search of my Gmail address book discovered I already knew 140 people on Twitter including my dad, one of my favourite novelists and my mother in law.

In the world of internet trends there’s a technical term for this. It’s called being “fashionably late.”

So, if you’re still hoping that Twitter will vanish before you have to learn to understand it, you may be out of luck. It’s here to stay, at least for the next few years. If you’re hearing the word come up with increased frequency in business or social circles, it might be time to try it out.

What is Twitter?

Twitter is an internet application that allows you to keep other people (friends, co-workers, strangers) up to date on your status. You can also use it to share quick thoughts, links, pictures, or pretty much anything you want. The only catch: you have to do it all in 140 characters or less. For example, so far I’ve used it to announce an upcoming musical performance, let people know I was on my way to watch an improv show (and then post a map link once I arrived), complain that I was getting sick, and announce that my train was arriving 45 minutes late.

These tweets, as they’re called, are very similar to a Facebook profile’s status line. (In fact, you can configure Twitter to automatically update your Facebook status.) They can also be described as “micro-blog” posts, good for quick hits that don’t warrant a long-form post, or that perhaps have not yet been flushed out into one.

Why would I use Twitter?

So if Twitter is just a glorified Facebook status, or a blog without any substance (yes, I am contending that some blogs contain substance), why does it matter, and why would anyone want to use it? Here are a few reasons I’ve discovered in my first few weeks:

  1. Twitter is a public conversation. All public tweets are searchable, which means you’re not just talking with yourself or with your friends: you’re interacting with other people who are talking about the same things you are, in real time. The applications for this vary from entertainment (people watching TV, or sharing random thoughts) to practical (people updating each other on the TTC’s status) to news (people reporting on and reacting to real time news events).
  2. Twitter is fluid and versatile. Users can tag their posts with any keyword they want on the fly (#carcrash, #iPhone, #dinner) to instantly create a limitless number of categories and conversations. No need for an administrator to create the conversation; the conversation begins as soon as the first phrase is muttered. You can search the public feed or see what people are taking about right now using trending.
  3. Twitter plays well with others. Instead of taking time away from your Facebook account, your blog and your other online activities, Twitter integrates with them and enhances them. Your blog can update your Twitter account, your Twitter account can update your blog, your Twitter account can update your Facebook status, etc.
  4. Twitter is highly mobile. So far I’ve updated Twitter using the web, an iPhone app, a BlackBerry app and a simple SMS text message, and I haven’t even exhausted all the options. That means that unlike most other things you do online, there are very low barriers to regular, spontaneous use.
  5. Twitter is low commitment. On most social networks (like Facebook) all connections must be mutual (if you want to be friends with me, I have to friend you back). Not so with Twitter, where the people who follow you and the people you follow don’t have to be identical. For example, I can chose to follow the updates of Toronto Mayor David Miller and city councillor Adam Giambrone whether they want to follow me back or not. (In case you’re wondering, the latter does, the former does not.)

Happy tweeting.

Bad news

news media, , ,

I’m hearing the same message from many friends: it’s awful out there. With the economy going from bad to worse, we’re all focused on keeping our heads down and doing our jobs. Some of us have taken on more than one title at the same company in the hopes that it will make us less disposable. For the first time members of my generation know what it’s like to have their job security threatened en masse. We know that if we don’t do our jobs, someone else gladly will.

My current business, newspapers, is no exception. In the United States, Tribune Co. (owner of the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, and other daily newspapers) has filed for bankruptcy and the New York Times looked to mortgage their building to generate funds. Here in Canada, Sun Media cut 600 jobs in December, and in back-to-back announcements this month the Globe and Mail eliminated 90 positions and The Chronicle Herald cut 24 reporters, or almost a full quarter of their newsroom. Meanwhile Canwest, which owns daily local papers across the country as well as the National Post, has seen their stock plummet to less than a dollar a share and is desperately attempting to sell assets while having their borrowing ability curtailed. In other words, the newspaper business is in serious trouble.

John Honderich, former publisher of The Toronto Star, recently argued in said publication that the decline of newspapers “should concern us all:”

For me, it relates directly to the very quality of our democracy. In order for all of us to live meaningfully and participate in our community, we must be appropriately informed.

In this regard, the quality of public debate, if not the very quality of life in any community, is a direct function of the quality of media that serve it. Indeed, the functioning of a healthy democracy is predicated on a well-informed populace.

By that measure we must deem the news media in recent years to be a complete failure.

The “quality of public debate” has not been lower in living memory. Politicians fuel their campaigns entirety on spin, void of substance, never fearing that anyone will call them on it. Once elected, even Parliamentarians in the highest offices can be counted on to sink to the lowest levels of discourse. Members of the government recently went so far as to describe actions of the opposition as “treason” and a “coup d’état” when they were, in fact, operating well within the rules of our Parliamentary democracy.

Enter the “well-informed populace,” which, not knowing any better, believed the government’s blatant lies. A survey conducted by Ipsos Reid for the Dominion Institute shortly after the coalition debacle revealed that the majority of Canadians lack an understanding of some of the most basic elements of how their democracy functions.

And what of that “healthy, functioning” democracy? Far better than the countries that have none to be sure, but a far cry from where it should be too. We remain one of the last parliamentary democracies on Earth to use an antiquated voting system that delivers results we did not ask for. This, despite the fact that when citizens have studied the issue, they have chosen change. Of those entrenched institutions standing in the way of democratically-driven voting reform, few have been as staunch as newspapers (including Honderich’s).

By these measures, the news media is not doing its job, and that should indeed concern us all. It should also concern the media, because if you don’t do your job, someone else gladly will. And right now, even a comedian from Newfoundland with a standard definition TV and a one dollar pointer is giving you a run for your money.

Eddie brings the perspective

democracy and good government, , , ,

The only time I’ve seen Pearl Jam in concert was in Chicago’s Grant Park two summers ago, the exact same place where President Barack Obama (yeah, Warren’s right, it feels amazing to type that — President Barack Obama!) made his victory speech on election night in November. That might have something to do with why this quote today from singer Eddie Vedder (via Alan Cross) struck me.

Two years ago, you were wondering what could there possibly be to unite our country and get us out of this mess. What can get us back on the positive? What can bring us back into some kind of standing with the international community? And it seemed like that there would not be any answer. Who knew we would get to this moment?

That’s how I sometimes feel about Canada right now.  There is a vacuum and no obvious way to fill it.

But Eddie brings an encouraging thought. Somewhere, for us too, there is a leader—or a team of leaders—waiting to articulate a vision for “rebuilding Canada,” so to speak. We just haven’t met them yet, or if we have, haven’t recognized what they have to offer. I’m optimistic that we will.

ps. Just to be clear though, Warren’s right about this too.

Harper, Rae wrong on Khadr

canadian sovereignty, conservative party, liberal party, , , , , ,

According to this Toronto immigration lawyer, both Stephen Harper and Bob Rae are making a very “simple” mistake when it comes to the question of if Omar Khadr can return to Canada.

I have never dealt in this space with the right of Canadian citizens to enter Canada. The simple reason for this is that the law on this point is crystal clear and rarely in dispute.

This right is considered a “fundamental” one and so it is entrenched in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was signed by Queen Elizabeth in 1982.

Our Charter describes this right as follows:

“Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.”

…Pretty simple, huh?

Not when it comes to Omar Khadr.

This fundamental right seems to have somehow been ignored during most of the debate, and some of the rhetoric, that surrounds this Canadian citizen’s controversial set of circumstances.

…Prime Minister Stephen Harper has publicly stated that he will not allow Khadr back here unless the charges against him are dropped for good. Of course, Harper has not explained what legal authority he has to prevent Khadr, a Canadian citizen, from exercising his right to return to Canada.

Even the Canadian opposition has it wrong. Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae suggested that Harper appoint a panel of experts to advise the Canadian government on how to deal with Khadr. Any expert, in my view, would agree that Khadr has a constitutional right to return to Canadian soil. What happens to him after that is a matter of domestic criminal law which is unrelated to his right to enter Canada.

The thousand or so senior judges who together form the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association describe our justice system as follows: “We are said to be ruled by law, not by those who enforce the law or wield government power.”

President Obama’s actions have signaled a swift and firm return to the rule of law.

I hope that we will follow not only the American lead but also our own legal tradition.

Pretty serious stuff. Bob, on what grounds do you and the prime minister presume to be able to ignore the Charter?