Dear Aoir folk, I had a Morton's thai chicken sandwich for lunch. Delicious. Pretty trivial, eh? So why do people do it? I can understand retweeting 'important' or novel things: it is obviously a practice for garnering attention (see danah, Scott and Gilad's new DRAFT: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/06/18/understanding_r.html ). But why do people tweet what appears to be trivial statements? In the process of norm formation on twitter, I have been privy to more than a few conversations where the most common complaint about twitter is that twitter is for people who want to show off everything they're doing and, "I don't care what they had for lunch"; they are being exhibitionistic (which is a veiled term for unwanted self-exposure). Any thoughts? Here's some ideas: 1. People do not know what constitutes 'interesting' and they are trying. (The spaghetti on the wall hypothesis - throw it all and see what sticks) 2. People genuinely believe they are promoting something. 3. People want to make themselves accessible - mundane twitters help signify a sense of "connected presence". Also, have you followed anyone who was a trivial twitter, but ultimately stopped tweeting everything? Have you been privy to a norm-reevaluation (i.e. someone complaining about a tweeter that led to a change in the tweeter's behavior?). Did you tweet everything and then give up because it led to more bad press than good press? Was there an audience feedback in there, for example, people stopped following me until I started posting 'serious' things, like discussions about twitter, then it picked up? Take care, BERNiE (@blurky) Bernie Hogan Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford
I take box #3: I see trivial tweeting as the contemporary form of Malinowski's "phatic communication", a speech act meant to be social, rather than informative. -mz -- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Associate, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Bernie Hogan wrote:
Dear Aoir folk,
I had a Morton's thai chicken sandwich for lunch. Delicious.
Pretty trivial, eh? So why do people do it? I can understand retweeting 'important' or novel things: it is obviously a practice for garnering attention (see danah, Scott and Gilad's new DRAFT: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/06/18/understanding_r.html ). But why do people tweet what appears to be trivial statements?
In the process of norm formation on twitter, I have been privy to more than a few conversations where the most common complaint about twitter is that twitter is for people who want to show off everything they're doing and, "I don't care what they had for lunch"; they are being exhibitionistic (which is a veiled term for unwanted self-exposure).
Any thoughts? Here's some ideas: 1. People do not know what constitutes 'interesting' and they are trying. (The spaghetti on the wall hypothesis - throw it all and see what sticks) 2. People genuinely believe they are promoting something. 3. People want to make themselves accessible - mundane twitters help signify a sense of "connected presence".
Also, have you followed anyone who was a trivial twitter, but ultimately stopped tweeting everything? Have you been privy to a norm-reevaluation (i.e. someone complaining about a tweeter that led to a change in the tweeter's behavior?). Did you tweet everything and then give up because it led to more bad press than good press? Was there an audience feedback in there, for example, people stopped following me until I started posting 'serious' things, like discussions about twitter, then it picked up?
Take care, BERNiE (@blurky)
Bernie Hogan Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I would agree - and see this as a larger trend which is visible also in photography or blog comments. Plus, what is iteresting? CNN's endlessly repeating non-news about i.e. swine flu is not that much more interesting than what a friend had for lunch. On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Michael Zimmer <zimmerm@uwm.edu> wrote:
I take box #3: I see trivial tweeting as the contemporary form of Malinowski's "phatic communication", a speech act meant to be social, rather than informative.
-mz
-- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Associate, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org
On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Bernie Hogan wrote:
Dear Aoir folk,
I had a Morton's thai chicken sandwich for lunch. Delicious.
Pretty trivial, eh? So why do people do it? I can understand retweeting 'important' or novel things: it is obviously a practice for garnering attention (see danah, Scott and Gilad's new DRAFT: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/06/18/understanding_r.html ). But why do people tweet what appears to be trivial statements?
In the process of norm formation on twitter, I have been privy to more than a few conversations where the most common complaint about twitter is that twitter is for people who want to show off everything they're doing and, "I don't care what they had for lunch"; they are being exhibitionistic (which is a veiled term for unwanted self-exposure).
Any thoughts? Here's some ideas: 1. People do not know what constitutes 'interesting' and they are trying. (The spaghetti on the wall hypothesis - throw it all and see what sticks) 2. People genuinely believe they are promoting something. 3. People want to make themselves accessible - mundane twitters help signify a sense of "connected presence".
Also, have you followed anyone who was a trivial twitter, but ultimately stopped tweeting everything? Have you been privy to a norm-reevaluation (i.e. someone complaining about a tweeter that led to a change in the tweeter's behavior?). Did you tweet everything and then give up because it led to more bad press than good press? Was there an audience feedback in there, for example, people stopped following me until I started posting 'serious' things, like discussions about twitter, then it picked up?
Take care, BERNiE (@blurky)
Bernie Hogan Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
A friend of mine would, I think, also take box #3; he says he tweets to inform his colleagues (*not* his friends!) so they can more easily ask him how his weekend was. He feels that they find it easier to ask "how did your guitar solo at your performance work out on Saturday?" then "Did you have a nice weekend?", so I suppose he is priming them by supplying context. That way, the Monday morning greetings can start off in second gear.
Hi Bernie, hi all, When i started on tweeter two years ago, 'trivial tweeting' was everything tweeter was about. It was even a pain to copy/paste an url into/from the text field when you happened to want to do so. Still, after a few weeks i was convinced that this new communication channel had a real, nontrivial point. And a few months later (as far as France is concerned), facebook was there to confirm it. My favorite example to explain it to people that tell me 'but this twitter thing, isn't it just for egocentric people?': You're sitting at a café, the waiter just treats you like a piece of shit, you could just say loud to yourself and to whoever around wants to hear it (in French we have this word 'parler à la cantonade'): 'hey, this sucker just treats me like a piece of shit!', but maybe you're not sure you really want to have to manage the sequel of this conversation teasing addressed to the people around you. Maybe you prefer to address to the people that are *socialnetworkly* around you. I'm an unbearable office mate because i always say aloud things like 'oh great, now it works!', or 'no, i can't believe he did it again!'. Bernie's trivial tweets have exactly the same function, but for a remote audience. So i definitely go for the 'connected presence' #3. And yes, it's a bit egocentric, like, well, speaking to someone else... -- Christophe. Le 1 juil. 09 à 16:28, Bernie Hogan a écrit :
Dear Aoir folk,
I had a Morton's thai chicken sandwich for lunch. Delicious.
Pretty trivial, eh? So why do people do it? I can understand retweeting 'important' or novel things: it is obviously a practice for garnering attention (see danah, Scott and Gilad's new DRAFT: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/06/18/understanding_r.html ). But why do people tweet what appears to be trivial statements?
In the process of norm formation on twitter, I have been privy to more than a few conversations where the most common complaint about twitter is that twitter is for people who want to show off everything they're doing and, "I don't care what they had for lunch"; they are being exhibitionistic (which is a veiled term for unwanted self-exposure).
Any thoughts? Here's some ideas: 1. People do not know what constitutes 'interesting' and they are trying. (The spaghetti on the wall hypothesis - throw it all and see what sticks) 2. People genuinely believe they are promoting something. 3. People want to make themselves accessible - mundane twitters help signify a sense of "connected presence".
Also, have you followed anyone who was a trivial twitter, but ultimately stopped tweeting everything? Have you been privy to a norm-reevaluation (i.e. someone complaining about a tweeter that led to a change in the tweeter's behavior?). Did you tweet everything and then give up because it led to more bad press than good press? Was there an audience feedback in there, for example, people stopped following me until I started posting 'serious' things, like discussions about twitter, then it picked up?
Take care, BERNiE (@blurky)
Bernie Hogan Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Hi Bernie and everyone, I think what interests me most about this particular post is the pattern I see emerging in 'concerns' around new technologies that either upscale quite well or go 'mainstream'. About six years ago, when I was at the beginning of my PhD research, and in the midst of a huge growth in blogging, similar questions were posited then: 1. Why do people write about their inane and mundane lives? We are not talking about the more popular or celebrity bloggers, who, are popular or visible because they are an exception rather than the rule. 2. More significantly, who are the people responding to these 'trivial' or 'useless' information that is being published? 3. What is the relationship between the blog, the blogger and the participating audience that manages to carry the momentum so that the dynamics are perpetuated? I don't think there are many resolutions or explainations that might answer these questions satisfactorily - or in other words, each theory is as plausible as the other, and at the end of the day, just that. A theory. It is interesting to see how the concerns and questions which were once pinned on blogging are leap-frogging on to twitter now. This constant extension of certain concerns and expectations from one technology on to another, interests me quite a lot. On the one hand, this becomes the driving point of innovation and experimentation as we seek 'better' and more 'efficient' technologies which will eventually resolve the concerns and on the other, the existing technologies themselves seek to expand their usage, scope and potential in a bid to survive in the ruthless technology markets of consuption. I was particularly struck by the idea of exhibitionism and the use of sexual metaphors in trying to understand twitter (and other micro blogging networks) because Once Upon a Time, I had started an inquiry into the whole nature of pleasure-blogging-pornography, which I have published in parts but am still trying to figure out. (E-copy of the paper available at http://cis-india.org/publications/cis-publications/nishant-shahs-publication...) I don't really have immediate answers to these questions, and I am reluctant to pick a box, but I do think that the conversation is getting very interesting, and it is fascinating how the questions which had more or less died with every mainstream media house starting a blog, have resurfaced with twitter. I will write soon if I have more to say. But thanks a lot Bernie, for starting up a very interesting discussion. Warmly Nishant On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Bernie Hogan <bernie.hogan@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Aoir folk,
I had a Morton's thai chicken sandwich for lunch. Delicious.
Pretty trivial, eh? So why do people do it? I can understand retweeting 'important' or novel things: it is obviously a practice for garnering attention (see danah, Scott and Gilad's new DRAFT: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2009/06/18/understanding_r.html ). But why do people tweet what appears to be trivial statements?
In the process of norm formation on twitter, I have been privy to more than a few conversations where the most common complaint about twitter is that twitter is for people who want to show off everything they're doing and, "I don't care what they had for lunch"; they are being exhibitionistic (which is a veiled term for unwanted self-exposure).
Any thoughts? Here's some ideas: 1. People do not know what constitutes 'interesting' and they are trying. (The spaghetti on the wall hypothesis - throw it all and see what sticks) 2. People genuinely believe they are promoting something. 3. People want to make themselves accessible - mundane twitters help signify a sense of "connected presence".
Also, have you followed anyone who was a trivial twitter, but ultimately stopped tweeting everything? Have you been privy to a norm-reevaluation (i.e. someone complaining about a tweeter that led to a change in the tweeter's behavior?). Did you tweet everything and then give up because it led to more bad press than good press? Was there an audience feedback in there, for example, people stopped following me until I started posting 'serious' things, like discussions about twitter, then it picked up?
Take care, BERNiE (@blurky)
Bernie Hogan Research Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute University of Oxford _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Nishant Shah Doctoral Candidate, CSCS, Bangalore. Director (Research), Centre for Internet and Society,( www.cis-india.org ) Asia Awards Fellow, 2008-09 # 00-86-21-66130376
participants (6)
-
Bernie Hogan -
Christophe Prieur -
Jerom Janssen -
joana ro -
Michael Zimmer -
Nishant Shah