It appears that Twitter has become the latest Facebook, or so people are telling me. Celebrities and even politicians have signed up for the service and "tweet" about all kinds of interesting (or meaningless) topics.
I, for one, have yet to see the value in signing up for a Twitter account. It just seems like something that would consume more of my time than it would really be worth in the end. The concept seems like a hybrid between texting and Facebook and while I enjoy both of these individual means of communicating, I am not sure that I need to have a Twitter feed. Maybe I just don't care enough about what my friends are eating for breakfast or what their latest inside joke is (that I won't understand anyway).
Much to my surprise, I found that there is a little debate about this exact topic that has been taking place on the internets. John Cole somewhat agrees that there may be little value in Twitter, but I hope that I don't come off quite as crotchty as he does in his post. (Damn these kids and their new-fangled technology!)
Jay Ackroyd on the other hand, thinks that those in the beltway media using Twitter is a good thing because it often drills down to their real, unfiltered feelings on issues (Often emphasizing how messed up the beltway media mentality can be).
So perhaps I can begin to see that there may be some value to this after all. Like all of these social media tools, there will always be elements that one may find or not find valuable, but for my own purposes I still think that I may sit on the sidelines and watch for the near future. I am not quite sold as of yet.
After all, Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan both point to how fun just watching can actually be. They both bring up the value of Christopher Walken's Twitter feed. Even if you find zero value in Twitter, you must admit that his feed is highly entertaining and pretty hilarious.