Twittering Like a Bunch of Lemmings

I must again thank a co-worker for the following link!

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a very interesting piece on Twitter written by KATHERINE BOEHRET and edited by Walter S. Mossberg. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB122826572677574415-rXaM5BTzeRQMfvAuP3_4gjVJm_A_20091203.html?mod=rss_personal_technology

While the content of the article focuses on the mechanics and lingo of Twitter, it was the headline which truly caught my attention... "Birds of a Feather Twitter Together - Social-Networking Service Connects Followers, Not Friends, on PCs and Mobile Phones." It connects followers. Sounds like a cult... or better yet... a herd.

The author carefully selected the term 'followers' because, as she explains, while Facebook and MySpace have users connecting with 'friends,' on Twitter you select people to 'follow'. That got me thinking down the trail of my last post about Twitter (i.e. 'being for Twits') ....thousands of Twitterers with tens of thousands of followers following the every minutia of each others lives... receiving innumerable updates from countless people.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines the word herd as, and I quote, "2 a (1): a group of people usually having a common bond (2): a large assemblage of like things b: the undistinguished masses." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/herd

The undistinguished masses... how apropos. For people who are looking to stand out and connect with others 'like them' because of their individuality, it is interesting to find them flock to an application that, because of the brevity of its format and ability for just anyone to start following someone else, really seems to bury that very individuality in an undulating sea of 'twits'. Why would anyone just blindly follow someone else just because that person is 'following' one of their friends? Didn't they ever have some version of the following conversation with their parents?

Kid: "I'm sorry. I know it was a stupid thing to do."
Mom/Dad/Parental figure: "Honey, just because someone else does it doesn't mean you have to... I mean, if Suzy jumped off a bridge, would you jump to?"

This whole new media landscape has me concerned. Are people so starved to be part of something that they feel the need to subscribe, follow, RSS feed, DIGG, Tweet and blog about everything they do. Each person may 'feel' like they are being an individual, but when you take a step back it looks more like a herd... a herd of lemmings all gyrating about.

But the situation will only get worse with more and more people losing ever more time following even more people's twits... in a December 4th New York Times article by Claire Cain Miller, http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/why-twitter-turned-down-facebook/ she cites that during a recent public speech by Evan Williams, the chief executive and co-founder of Twitter, one very eager Twitter user proudly stated that he follows - - get this, 17,800 people! And it gets better! Mr. Williams reply? And I quote "“Do you do anything else?” asked Mr. Williams, who said he can barely keep up with the 947 people he follows."

17,800 people? 947 people? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! He has the audacity to ask this guy how he does anything else in his day? How does he follow 947 people and still have a job? The very telling answer lies in the very same article, and I quote:

"Twitter has raised $20 million from venture capitalists, but has brought in virtually no revenue, choosing growth over everything else." Apparently he sold his last venture, Pyra Labs (which created Blogger) to Google in 2003... likely for a lot of money. Can Twitter be very far behind? Looks like the Pied Piper is getting all the lemming hooked with his twittering flute, just so he can sell it and them out to someone who will find a great way to 'moneterize' another facet of your life... have fun reading that twit about the new 12 bladed Schick razor as you follow the herd off the cliff!