Still not twittering

I recently said that Twitter was a crucial part, but not the only crucial part, of getting information out of Iran (and in similar situations). Since then, this has only been reconfirmed. Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, Flickr, the blogosphere and other "new media" have played a central role in events.

So why don't I have a Twitter account? It's a simple case of the general vs. the particular. In general, Twitter has been highly useful (so far, the Iran story still seems to get more traffic Celebrity du Jour). But I still don't see a particular need. I just don't have a pressing need to send short messages to an indeterminate group of interested people.

If I want to send a short message to a co-worker, I walk over and tell them, or send an email. In a previous job, not everyone was in the same office, so we used IM a lot. If I want to send a short message to a personal friend, I call them or email them. If I want to fire an arrow into the virtual air for anyone to catch (watch that sharp point -- this is what comes of mixing metaphors), I write a blog post. I find I have time to do that every few days (the baker's dozen was a bit of an anomaly).

Your milage may vary. If you're a news provider, a minor celebrity, a street protestor, someone with an active online social life, or probably many other kinds of person, it does vary. So far, though, I haven't found myself in any of those groups.

[I don't recall if I titled that post before "tweet" was standard, or was too indifferent to know that it was standard, or was deliberately twitting the tweeters, but in any case I still don't tweet, for pretty much the same reasons as given here --D.H. Jan 2016].