April 5th, 2010
Margaret Atwood has written a remarkably sympathetic tribute to Twitter:
So what's it all about, this Twitter? Is it signaling, like telegraphs? Is it Zen poetry? Is it jokes scribbled on the washroom wall? Is it John Hearts Mary carved on a tree? Let's just say it's communication, and communication is something human beings like to do.
The entire article is well worth a read, but for all the fun Atwood is having I'm still not tempted to dive in and get involved in the Twittersphere.
- I don't have time.
It's all I can do to more or less keep up with the feeds I follow and write a couple of weblog posts a day. If I kept breaking off to keep up with/participate in a discussion on Twitter I'd never get anything done.1
- I wouldn't want to use Twitter just to send out notifications that I'd posted something at this site.
If someone wants to follow my posting here, there's a perfectly serviceable RSS or Atom feed for them to use.
- If I did have the time and inclination to write something specifically for Twitter, I couldn't live with the 140 character limit on posts.
- I hate URL shorteners on general principle.
- The clincher: I prefer to think of my online activities as antisocial networking.
I find the very language of social networking – 'friending' and 'followers' and all that – somewhere between deeply unappealing and just plain wrong. My social graph is, to put it mildly, sparsely populated.
- Bear in mind that, with the exception of the odd item I read during my lunch break and post about when I get home that day, my blogging on weekdays is based on whatever web browsing I get the chance to do during the evening. ↩