Posted 13 May 2009 - 07:15 AM
Posted 13 May 2009 - 10:08 AM
It's not exactly a silent spring, but a change made to Twitter's settings this afternoon has already greatly reduced the tweets its users are witness to. In what the company called a small settings update, users no longer see public replies sent by friends to people they themselves are not following. (Fragmented conversations, they are called.) This isn't a small change at all, it's big and it's bad. The new setting eliminates serendipitous social discovery. . . .
The new policy isn't something you have to opt-in to. It's not something you can opt-out of. It's true for people who use 3rd party Twitter clients to read their Tweets. It's more fundamentally closed than Facebook is; on that site I may not be able to view the profiles of strangers talking to my friends, but I can see that the conversations are happening and I can read the comments. This new Twitter policy breaks one of the fundamental rules of social activity streams: that I can discover new people by seeing who is conversing with the people I already know. . . .
ReadWriteWeb.com, May 12
Posted 13 May 2009 - 04:39 PM
Tuesday wasn't just about results, as one party's use of a social networking site was found to be in violation of the province's Election Act. The B.C. Liberal Party had been posting updates on its Twitter account during the day. Someone reported it to Elections B.C., which told the party it was in violation of a law that prevents candidates, parties and third-party sponsors from advertising on election day.
The Liberals stopped their so-called “tweeting” immediately, and deleted the posts from that day. The party won't be punished, Elections B.C. spokesman Kenn Faris said.
Violating section 233 of the province's Election Act carries a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for up to one year.
The B.C. NDP also runs a Twitter account, but did not update it Tuesday.
Posted 27 May 2009 - 09:09 PM
The first installment was great. Can't wait for them to go live with weekly installments.
Posted 18 June 2009 - 09:12 AM
Which is pretty cool.
Posted 18 June 2009 - 11:28 AM
Edited by Overstreet, 18 June 2009 - 11:38 AM.
Posted 23 June 2009 - 10:24 AM
Posted 31 July 2009 - 09:50 AM
. . . the craziest subplot of the offseason: NBA players using Twitter to break news about themselves, and even stranger, reporters posting their scoops on Twitter even before their employers had a chance to print them. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Facebook is a social network. Twitter is a media/marketing vehicle disguised as a social network. Big difference. And if you don't think it's changing the way information is dispersed, for good and bad, you're insane.The Tonight Show:
Posted 31 July 2009 - 10:38 AM
Twitter’s footprint has expanded impressively in the first half of 2009, reaching 10.7 percent of all active Internet users in June. Perhaps even more impressively, this growth has come despite a lack of widespread adoption by children, teens, and young adults. In June 2009, only 16 percent of Twitter.com website users were under the age of 25. Bear in mind persons under 25 make up nearly one quarter of the active US Internet universe, which means that Twitter.com effectively under-indexes on the youth market by 36 percent.
Nielsen Wire, July 30
- - -
Given that many films are aimed squarely at the 18-24 demographic, one wonders how much of any given film's box-office performance or underperformance can be credited to opening-weekend tweeting, if the people within that demographic aren't even tweeting all that much in the first place.
Posted 31 July 2009 - 11:13 AM
Posted 20 August 2009 - 12:08 PM
WARNING: Profanity! Lots of it. I thought twice before posting the link, but the content had me laugh -- and we could all use a laugh, couldn't we? My apologies to those who are offended.
Posted 19 October 2009 - 09:31 AM
Filmmakers are becoming increasingly worried about actors ruining plots and damaging the industry by putting up messages on the public website.
Executives at Dreamworks have forbidden actors from giving out information on the internet by inserting clauses into their contracts - with Diaz and Myers, who are lined up to star in another Shrek sequel next year, the first affected by the move.
WENN, October 19
Posted 04 May 2010 - 09:51 PM
Twitter: No matter what Hollywood thinks, it's totally uncool for kids
Teens Don't Tweet; Twitter's Growth Not Fueled By Youth
Twitter's footprint has expanded impressively in the first half of 2009, reaching 10.7 percent of all active Internet users in June. Perhaps even more impressively, this growth has come despite a lack of widespread adoption by children, teens, and young adults. In June 2009, only 16 percent of Twitter.com website users were under the age of 25. Bear in mind persons under 25 make up nearly one quarter of the active US Internet universe, which means that Twitter.com effectively under-indexes on the youth market by 36 percent.
Nielsen Wire, July 30
When I had a little downtime with this year's Summer Movie Posse, I asked them how they kept up with the buzz about movies. As you might expect, they spent a lot of time online, which gives them a chance to look at trailers or hear word of mouth about upcoming movies on their friends' Facebook pages or sites like Slashfilm.com or Comingsoon.net.
But when I asked whether they kept abreast of things via Twitter, they all looked at me like I was crazy. Rajiv Rao, who's 17, said "I don't know one high schooler that uses Twitter." His friend, Arya Zarifi, also 17, added: "It's something for adults who feel like it makes them hip or something."
Yalda Chalabi, 17, was especially dismissive of actors and celebrities who use Twitter as a self-promotional tool. "I hate it when they say, 'Follow me on Twitter,' as if we're interested in every little thing they have to say," she explained. "It's just an adult thing. Our music teacher kept saying that she would put stuff up for us to follow on Twitter until one day she said, 'OK, who's following me on Twitter?' And no one raised their hand. You keep hearing people talk about it, but I don't know anyone my age that uses it." . . .
Patrick Goldstein, Los Angeles Times, May 4
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 04 May 2010 - 09:51 PM.
Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:04 PM
It turns out that my teen pals were right. As former New Line marketing chief Gordon Paddison, who's now an indie consultant, put it: "The thing we've found that's actually much more impressive is the amount of people spreading word-of-mouth by texting."
This was confirmed by an OTX research study last September that found that Twitter actually had far less impact than Facebook and MySpace, along with co-worker and family interaction, when it came to spreading the buzz about good or bad movies. . . .
Patrick Goldstein, Los Angeles Times, July 27
Posted 29 July 2010 - 02:33 AM
The film critic Michael Sicinski became aggrieved with me recently; he was upset that I cited a particularly tetchy "tweet" by him, and particularly that I did so after largely ignoring his more serious work. Did he has a right to be aggrieved? Probably; after all, I did preface a prior, similar objection to an observation by Richard Brody by paying Brody a compliment; I might have at least had the common courtesy to acknowledge that Sicinski's tweet was not representative of his larger body of work. On the other hand, as I pointed out, I didn't write Sicinski's tweet; Sicinski wrote it. And I didn't "retweet" it, and bring it to the attention of a larger audience; Karina Longworth did. And that's how Twitter works. And I believe that if one is going to be on Twitter, one ought to understand what's going to happen there. And if you believe that Twitter is now a vital part of the "conversation" about cinema or politics or world events or whatever it is that's your bag, then you ought to get used to a lack of context. In theory, Twitter should work out to being all about context (context within context within context), but in practiceâ€”the difficulty in following its various conversations being paramount, but that's just for startersâ€”Twitter is turning out to be the ultimate in the context, as they say, of no context. If that's the currency you're going to deal in, then... I am not trying to pile on Michael here; what I mean, finally, it that Twitter is a dangerous place.One thing Kenny doesn't mention here, but could, is that Twitter pretty much actively DISCOURAGES context, because the page for each individual tweet contains none of the buttons that might enable you to toggle back and forth between consecutive tweets, and the URLs for each tweet contain no hint of what the URLs for the previous and successive tweets in those feeds might be. And that's just with regard to the context of a single Twitter account. On top of that, there is ALSO the problem of trying to follow conversations BETWEEN Twitter accounts -- which Kenny DOES allude to, but I think he means it in a present-tense sense, whereas I am thinking of it in more archival terms.
Posted 05 August 2010 - 06:23 PM
Glad I finally pronounced it, effectively killing this lame fad.