Oh dear. What a waste of an opportunity to explore the use of microblogging on yesterday’s episode of the Moral Maze. Instead we seemed to be offered only a debate built on the flimsy foundation of the now familiar stereotypical image of Twitter. If you missed it and want to hear the episode it is available for the next week though sadly I will warn you, you will probably not be challenged and will likely learn nothing.
The usual criticisms were made about the impossibility of depth or reflection given the character limit of the message, these observations made by… non-users. Well you can’t knock the programme for being elitist when it comes to qualifying to speak or present. And how much easier it is to see when your view is unclouded by actual experience, I do look forward to my invitation to debate the pros and cons of keyhole surgery or in fact anything else I haven’t done.
Herd mentality, mob rule… yes, worthy topics of discussion but are they special and distinctive of microbloggers? Hardly, so why was this this focus of discussion?
I’ve lost count of the number of positive experiences I’ve gained through the use of web 2.0 tools, it’s what keeps me using them, but part of that experience has stemmed from my approach: Twitter, like life, is what you make it.
If you don’t want to Twitter (or anything else) my advice is: ‘don’t’. But you didn’t need that advice did you, or to be reminded that what you don’t find useful some others might. I’ll be sure to remind the panel of this when I’m invited along to wax lyrical on dry stone walling and its role in the breakdown of family life next week.