Blog Fiasco

August 24, 2010

Is Twitter just a crippled version of IRC?

Filed under: Musings,The Internet — Tags: , , — bcotton @ 12:24 pm

Back in May, Karsten Wade posted “microblog format/interaction is a crippled, radically transparent form of #IRC. Otherwise, seems to serve same purposes.”  I don’t know if that’s his own conclusion or if he was quoting someone else, but I disagree either way.  The other evening, I had a related discussion with a friend.  Her take was that Twitter is a less-featureful version of Facebook status updates.  I don’t believe that either, but it seems to highlight a problem with Twitter: it’s utility isn’t readily apparent.

Twitter easily supports one-to-one and one-to-many interaction.  Many-to-many is possible, but requires some searching and/or client configuration.  That makes it a rather poor replacement for IRC.  IRC is also more real-time than Twitter is necessarily.  Although Twitter is often used for real-time events, it doesn’t have to be.  The big difference between IRC and Twitter is that IRC is self-contained.  This is a point I made several times during the Mario Marathon, when people in chat felt they were being ignored.  IRC can be very active, but no one outside the channel will notice.  With Twitter, the message gets spread each time someone posts.  If a topic begins to trend, that can pull in even more participants.

There’s a better case for saying Twitter is just like pulling the status updates out of Facebook.  Several people I know post Facebook status updates with their Twitter accounts, so it seems reasonable.  I’d agree that they are mostly the same, but there are a few differences.  The primary difference is that Facebook more easily allows threaded discussion, whereas a tweet stands alone.  Neither way is necessarily better; in certain circumstances one is preferable over another.  There’s also the lack of passive support.  In Facebook, you can “like” a status with impunity.  On Twitter, to express support, you must re-tweet and therefore own the statement.

To me, there’s a clear use for Twitter.  That’s not the case for many people, and until they can figure out a use, they simply won’t use it.

3 Comments »

  1. As it happens, I don’t disagree with you. :) What you describe about IRC is what I mean by “more radically transparent.” Since I made those comments, I have thought about it further, and I think that microblogging may be better than IRC for open project discussion because of the points you raise. IRC gets trapped within itself, while microblogging busts through in many ways, while still permitting reasonable conversations. (I like identi.ca’s “in context” feature that shows via their website the full thread of a discussion, including everyone you aren’t already subscribed to.)

    As a high-bandwidth discussion tool between a few people, a chat channel (IRC) still seems to have the upper hand. One reason is that long discussions may be annoying to people to who are subscribed to you. Since a goal with a microblogging tool includes increasing subscribers so messages get to a wider audience, folks are more likely to curtail a discussion and keep it short/on-topic. Also, 140 characters forces creativity and brevity at the expense of clarity and understanding (as compared to IRC.)

    Does that help a bit with understanding where I’m coming from?

    More recent micropost, and then in context:

    https://twitter.com/quaid/status/17344245857787905

    https://identi.ca/conversation/60217711#notice-60840027

    Comment by Karsten 'quaid' Wade — January 3, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

  2. D’oh! Sorry, first paragraph, second sentence should read: ‘What you describe about Twitter is what I mean by “more radically transparent.”‘ That is, the open nature, trending, broadcasting, etc. all make for a much, much more radically transparent experience for everyone than IRC does.

    Comment by Karsten 'quaid' Wade — January 3, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

  3. I see where you’re coming from now, and I guess that illustrates one drawback to Twitter: meaning can be lost in the constraints of 140 characters.

    Comment by bcotton — January 3, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress