we’re twittering about hot, stodgy brits
OK, OK. We dropped the ball by not talking about Twitter before this. Cathi’s been spending all her time in Second Life, so that’s her excuse. Nora’s divided between her ‘this is cool’ self and her ‘omg, how does anyone get any work done’ self.
Also, New Scientist reports on a new study about the behaviour of real world social networks. It seems that small groups need minimal turnover to thrive, whereas large groups need lots of new blood. What are the implications for online social networks?
Meanwhile, trendwatcher Cathi says the Mackintosh, that trench long favoured by British Bobbies, is making a big, trendy comeback. Nora wonders, with Muji making chic, no name waves, is the designer label fetish in danger? (via Business Week)
April 17th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
as a neo-ludite, and reluctant geek, i was so so skeptical about twitter. why would i want to know whats going on every second?
but in the end it is a very low input, high value interactive space for me. if blogging is like sitting down with someone over a beer, twitter is like a cafe where you know everyone and can overhear the chatter, and join in with what’s of interest, whenever you feel like it. very casual, but also very personal. 140 chars keeps things succinct. me likes. (and I don;t have a cell phone).
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Okay so is it sort of like the water cooler for people who have an office? Does it keep you plugges in to the rest of the world and not so isolated? If so, that’s good, but I don’t think it’s necessarily good to have our attention snatched away by yet another thing to look at.
c