Tweet, Tweet, Chirped the Little Bird

"I woke up this morning and there was no milk, I'm now starving"

Imagine getting 20 or so random messages like that sent to your email, phone, and updated on your desktop widget at least 10 times a day. Maybe you don't have to imagine it, because you are already a part of the twitter movement. I have defiantly withstood this onslaught on personal privacy that is called Twitter; I figure if I can not have a MySpace after all these years I can live without this. I have a couple of problems with twitter on a philosophical level and also on a more practical level. Currently twitter has been getting a lot of publicity on tv and the internet and these two articles point out some of the impracticalities and problems with the system the way it is set up now.

My biggest problem with twitter is my sense that there is no inherent purpose to it's existence. If the goal is to simply update friends on your status and what you are up too, I feel that Facebook already did it first, and has a larger more coherent platform to do this from. Also there is a little more accountability in the world of facebook.

My second issue with twitter is the idea that people feel self-important enough to believe that thousands of people actually care what you just ate or what you are doing at this very instant...and more importantly I do not understand the people that follow others and feel the need to be alerted every time a person burps, farts, or pisses. The whole system seems a bit needy to me, both on the poster and follower sense. I know the argument coming; what's the difference between that and what you are doing right now? Well the difference is, that I am not limited to 140 characters. Nothing of sustenance or real importance is going to get said there.

Thirdly, this "need to stay connected" is fairly false. As a first generation Facebooker (it came online the same year I started college) I remember when it was really exclusive and useful for meeting new people at your school that you would then meet in the real world. Now most people (me included) have more FB friends then they could have possibly have met or known. People spend so much time "connected" on-line that they actually never "connect" in real life. It's a mad world I say.

Fourth, and this one really butters my buns, it is exceptionally lame! Older people are getting on it thinking it is the new cool hip thing to do. In reality most young hipsters I know would just as soon shoot a text updating the friends that need to know something, opposed to twittering them; I mean there is already a Facebook backlash starting. Texting is much more targeted then any tweet can be.

Finally, to me twitter is like a large bathroom stall at a high school that is constantly getting updated. As a source of news there is no peer review or verification going on to make sure items are credible. As a device to keep up with celebrities or politicians, there is no way to ensure that it is them actually maintaining there tweets. There is a reasonable expectation that publicist and managers keep up websites and myspace, but to have someone ghost write your tweets is inherently counter productive to the spirit of the movement

So this is my rant on Twitter. I know it has very little, if anything to do with law school, but whatever. If you dislike this post you can comment, email, call, or even text me...but please, please, please do not tweet me. Thanks Keep Clawing Away...

You Down Front

In a show of his political savvy and tech wizardry President Obama will be taking your questions today at 11:30am. A few days ago they opened up a long promised feature of the new White House website that allows everyday citizens to post questions blog style, and then vote questions up or down to be answered by 44 himself. Notwithstanding the fact that the top questions in several categories have to do with the legalization of marijuana I would like to know your thoughts on this new era of openness with the people. What intended and unintended consequences might be lurking behind this new "democratization" and openness of the Executive branch?

I personally think that the first and biggest benefit is simply an image shift from the Presidents immediate predecessor. That he is even taking the questions gives him the benefit of looking more open and trusting; it almost doesn't even matter if he answers the questions or not. Secondly, it makes all of his followers feel more involved. Even if your question doesn't get answered you have still trafficked the website and are more likely to watch the Q/A, thus getting informed through a particularly friendly filter of the president. Another benefit is that this tactic can only strengthen the "Cult of Obama", that is the people who may have never been involved in politics or the democratic party before, but feel a special connection to Barack. This gives him leverage when it comes time to do battle both with the GOP and also the DNC. Whereas in the past the national party could squeeze candidates through threats of withholding funds and legitimacy, it is now almost a complete 180. If Obama doesn't put his name to it, the voters will not see it as being legit

While this new super information highway directly to voters opens up a fast lane from the White House to the people, they should definitely be weary of a few pot holes. Not the least of which is, the more open you are the more we can see your flaws. The openness sword cuts two ways, not open enough and people start to get suspicious and distrustful; whereas being to open and allowing people to see you make mistakes make you seem less credible and more fallible. While it is true that all Presidents have been Human, and thus prone to error, no President finds it particularly pleasant to admit when his administration has been wrong or caught of guard. When you are under the spotlight you can only avoid a question so often before more and more people start to see that you don't know what you are talking about. By allowing this process to be so open, it would only take a small team of dedicated posters to get certain questions to the top of the list, ignore them enough and begins to be a story.

So yes, personally I'm all for this. I think it will be nice to have voters questions answered directly without the media filtering and telling us and the president what we mean. Often times the media ask what it wants to know, and assumes that middle America agrees, hardly the case I'd argue. What are your thoughts? Keep Clawing Away...