Who Killed the Mocking Bird?: Stupidest Internet idea since "Reply All."

Who Killed the Mocking Bird?

Stupidest Internet Idea since “Reply All”

Twitter's new policy of stifling chatter is counter-productive

by David A. Rozansky, Publisher, Flying Pen Press

Readers, Writers & Royalties columnist

May 13, 2009

Copyright 2009 David A. Rozansky aka @DavidRozansky

Twitter has a new policy, if you haven’t heard—and if you haven’t heard, it’s because Twitter made it so you can’t hear about it…

Twitter has a new policy. Starting today, replies in the Twitter stream can only be heard by people who follow you. There is no opt-in or opt-out.

For the uninitiated, Twitter is a giant chat room where a stream of 140-character texting messages, sent by internet or by phone, or any number of other sources, can be heard. Like any chat room, the result is a stream of text that is many conversations going on at once. It is also one of the largest social networking sites in history.

To make sense of this “Twitterstream,” as it is called, the Twitter service gives each account a name, of course, and marks the account name with a @-symbol prefix. For example, my Twitter account is @DavidRozansky.

If someone wants me to notice what they are saying in the Twitter stream, they will start their public message (called a “tweet”) with @DavidRozansky. The website I use to receive the Twitter stream, or any of the Twitter applications that are available, can filter the Twitter stream for messages that have @DavidRozansky in it.

Meanwhile, another feature of Twitter, like most any social networking site, is that it has a “Friends” option. On Twitter, this is called “Following”. I can filter the stream for public tweets posted by the accounts I have chosen to follow.

This still results in a bit of confusion. I can see the posts of my “Follows,” but I can’t see the tweets of the person they are having a discussion with unless I also “Follow” them. SO generally, I usually only see half a conversation unless I click on the @account name to see the other half.

Many people find this a barrier to Twitter, because they get lost in the Twitterstream, instead of filtering out the topics or accounts they want to follow.

However, the best use of Twitter, many believe (including me) is that the mayhem of the Twitterstream and the fractured conversations allow you to find new “Follows” that are of interest. It forces you to connect to new people to use the service properly.

Now there is a break in the Twitter stream. Hearing the myriad of complaints about the fractured nature of conversations, Twitter today introduced a new policy. It will no longer allow a reply starting with an @account name to be seen by the public at large, but rather, only by people following that person. So, if I send @daytonward a message saying that I like his new book, only those who already follow @daytonward will see it. None of my followers will see it. Yet the whole point is to recommend Ward’s new book to all the people following me.

In some ways, this is helpful. It puts an need to fractured conversation. If people can’t see the entire conversation, they no longer see any of it. Twitter’s public statements say that this reduces the clutter, and it certainly does. To those new to Twitter, this seems less threatening, of course, but is also very quiet, which defeats the purpose.

Let me see if I can give use a simile to clarify the situation. Let us say that you are at a cocktail party, as Twitter is often referred to. You wander around until you hear an interesting conversation. “What did you think of Dayton Ward’s latest book?”

Let’s assume you are a Dayton Ward fan, and you have not heard about his favorite book yet. So naturally, you turn to join the conversation. You stand idly by and listen in. To do so, you pretty much have to be polite and introduce yourself. In the world of Twitter, this is known as adding “Follows.”

Now, let’s take a second look at that same party. You walk in, but through some twist of fate, you can’t hear any of the conversations. You see a friend and you want to join in the conversation, but you only see them moving their mouth, not hearing anything, and worse, you can’t even see anyone there. Even if you stand idly by and say hello, you can’t hear the conversation in progress or see the other person (or perhaps people) who are also talking to your friend. That friend will likely turn to you, say hello, and start a conversation, but anything she says to her other friends, you hear nothing, see no one.

Talk about a bummer of a party. And for first-time Twitterers, this is a party where they know nobody. Imagine the silence, the emptiness of the room.

That’s the new Twitter policy.

Now, let me think on a few ideas on why this change is really bad for Twitter and for it’s users.

It makes for a really dull party, as stated above. The latecomers to the party will find only an empty room, until they befriend lord knows who. This will probably be either some account they already know, or it will be someone who finds them and sends them a direct, private message. Naturally, this is likely to be someone trying to sell them something. This is like attending an MLM party where you don’t know anyone, but everyone knows you are “fresh bait.” The spammers and predators will come out of the woodwork! Great for first timers who can’t find anyone to turn to for advice or for help, isn’t it?

Viral marketing is the main reason that Twitter is so big, and what makes it so commercially viable. Even though the company behind Twitter has not yet commercialized the service, it is a very magnetic service that has perhaps as large a potential as Google and FaceBook. What made it work is that people would hear parts of conversations, and to hear the full conversation, they would have to expand their network of Follows. Considering that these conversations are also posted on blogs and websites, this would cause people outside the network to join Twitter to benefit from the conversation. But now the conversation has been cut off, and in the resulting silence, people will no longer feel compelled to expand their network. This is a viral-marketing killer. Twitter has found the cure to viral marketing, and now the Twitter virus meme is contained. Watch for mega-shrinkage of the Twitterverse. (You gotta love Twitter slang.).

Twitter was a great as a chat room. It is the main function of Twitter. And chat rooms are great for group meetings between strangers, much like a town hall meeting, if you will. But imagine a town hall meeting where the politician is the only one you see, and you can never hear the answers the politician gives to the other attendees. Sure, the one-on-one time seems great, but the benefit of the meeting is useless. Wither it is a book club, a political rally, or merely a gossip fest, it can no longer happen on Twitter. Sure, through the use of searchable “hashtags,” (a tag indicated by the #-symbol prefix, such as #books or #Fixreplies), but even so, people will not know to search for the tags unless they “overhear” the tag being used. Without group discussions, the chatroom serves no purpose. This also puts shrinkage pressure on the Twitterverse.

The best part of Twitter, many exclaim, is that Twitter provides the fastest known form of getting a crowd to answer a question with a real answer: “@JoePlumber, how do I fix the leaks in my bathtub?” or “@Libraryman Can you recommend a good book?” I would hear the question, and if it perked my ears up, I would then add the follow or at least look at the non-followed account to see the answer. Or if I heard the answer, I could go look for the question. But with the change, I hear neither the question nor the answer. And when people can’t make such Q&A public, the value of the back-and-forth discussion in public is worthless. This sharing of knowledge is huge on Twitter, especially regarding breaking news. The lack of access to this public discourse will put more shrinkage pressure on the Twitterverse.

Ever heard of a “Tweetup?” Think of it as a flashmob, or as a phone tree. You can put out a notice like “@Superman We need help on Gulf Coast with hurricane relief.” Before, everyone that followed @Superman would also know of the disaster, and pitch in. Now, that won’t happen. Whether it is an impromptu party, a marketing event, a public rally, or a call for help, it will go unheard by all those followers. And when fewer people are drawn together by Twitter, they spend less time talking in the real world about Twitter, which is another shrinkage pressure on the Twitterverse.

News travels fast on Twitter. Many news outlets follow the Twitter stream for this very reason. Someone at the scene of news will send a tweet to one or more of his followers. If this no longer appears in the Twitterstream, then it isn’t seen by the likes of CNN or the local newspaper. If Twitter is no longer the best source for breaking news, the Twitterverse will feel pressure to go back to Yahoo as their primary news source, causing—you guessed it—shrinkage pressure.

The new Twitter is like New Coke. It is a really stupid idea rolled out without enough advance thinking or discussion with customers. What appeared as a great idea in controlled focus groups and in selective surveys has turned out to be a really, really bad idea. The shrinkage pressure as a result of the new idea to curb conversations is censorship, and like anyone affected by censorship, a free-thinking people will go elsewhere to have open discussions.

And like New Coke, the damage can be undone if fixed soon and quickly.

People want public discourse. If Twitter users need an account feature that allows them to opt out of fractured discussions and not see the tweets of the accounts they don’t follow, that would be fine. That would certainly create value for those who are not trying to join new conversations or listen for news and information. But for those who have made Twitter what it is today, the public discourse is critical.

The outcry of these loyal Twitter users—much like loyal Coca-Cola customers were during the New Coke debacle—have been vociferous in their dissent. Simply search for the hashtag #fixreplies on Twitter, and you will see that this has caused an outcry unmatched in Twitter history.

For those Twitter users who are reading this, let me offer the new “Twitterquette” (Twitter etiquette). If you are tweeting back and forth in the public space, please start your replies with the character “r”, indicating it is a reply. For example:

r @DaytonWard Thank you for your work on Space Grunts. #SciFi

You could alternatively start your tweet with a hashtag.

However, starting messages with the @symbol is now considered rude, because it is like whispering about someone else in front of their face. It’s just plain obnoxious. Save private messages for private space (d messages, as they are called). Until Twitter resets the reply filter back to its original usefulness, this workaround is only polite.

I have a lot of replies to catch up with right now, so I am signing off this article. Now, please follow me at @DavidRozansky on Twitter and let me know what you think (using the new Twitterquette). Please retweet this column, tell your friends, and most of all, please let Twitter know what you think of the new policy (support@twitter.com).

Update: I wanted to post this quickly, so there were numerous typos in original version. These have been fixed. See, you can always go back and fix things.

--

This is just one article in David A. Rozansky’s column, Readers, Writers & Royalties, a blog column about the book trade, from writing and publishing, to selling and reading.

Readers may find archived articles or subscribe to Readers, Writers & Royalties at www.ReadWriteRoyalty.Gather.com. Subscribe to all of Mr. Rozansky’s articles at www.FlyingPenPress.Gather.com.

David A. Rozansky is the publisher of Flying Pen Press. He has been in publishing since 1987, and has more than one million published words under his byline. Flying Pen Press is at http://www.FlyingPenPress.com. He is available for speaking on the subject of writing magazine articles, public relations, marketing and book-length material.