I Most Certainly Am Not A Twit!

Nor do I “twitter.” Twitter is the new darling of short attention span egoists. Tweets of 140 characters or less keep hundreds of “followers” informed of their every move. Twitter is becoming as popular as Facebook and MySpace, two of the best known networking applications available on the Internet and on mobile devices. In addition to manic thumb typists, movie stars, newscasters, and TV personalities send cyber messages ad nauseam.

A recent AP article by Martha Irvine, writing for USA Today, examines the Twitter madness and other social networking behaviors. The article describes the results of a recent Pew Internet & American Life Project survey that divides Americans of all ages into three groups: 45 % who love socializing via computer or mobile device, 48 % who do not, and 7% described as “conflicted about staying in constant contact.”

One cannot escape Twitter. We are led to believe that those without continuous connection to total strangers are antediluvian. Self-esteem is determined by the number of friends and followers one amasses. Oprah claimed 100,000 Twitter followers within hours of setting up her Tweeter presence.

But, wait a minute. Look at the Pew survey numbers again. Only 45% of the population love incessant socializing via computers and mobile devices. If the percentage of those “who do not” incorporate with the “conflicted” a majority of 55% emerges. Is this majority unaware of every other news article and their favorite news journalist’s continual claims that everyone—read “them”—tweets? Why haven’t the 55%-ers embraced this hot phenomenon? Are they twits too?

The hype is manipulative. The tyranny of the minority tries to convince the majority to follow. It’s Madison Avenue in cyberspades. Is that 55% too embarrassed to speak up?

Well, I’m not. I have refused numerous e-invites to become someone’s “friend.” (Web bots become quite indignant when you turn down their invitations!) I don’t need to have my mobile phone glued to my ear. I use IM for work purposes only and “chat” very occasionally. If you have a Facebook page don’t tell me about it. If you’re eating a greasy burger in St. Paul I don’t want to hear about. It’s not all about you. Sorry.

Here’s my unembarrassed stand on Twitter. Quite frankly, I’m not important enough to need continuous attachment to 500 total strangers. Actually I like the freedom inconsequence brings. But I do recognize importance. The vast majority of tweets and Facebook-like entries are banal, trivial. It’s noise, and I like solitude. Norman Cousins wrote that “a life without silence is a life without privacy.” I’m very big on privacy—mine and yours. Most of what passes for cyber-connectedness is ersatz relationship.

Those of us in that 55% are not out of the loop; we prefer that the loop not choke. Would it not be refreshing and charming for actual human beings to learn the latest, relevant news from real people in real time? The 55%-ers are not Luddites. Most of this majority is techno-savvy and comfortable with useful applications whether these are the next great thing or not. Perhaps the 55%-ers are more self-assured and substantial. We assess the situation in hand and adjust our actions accordingly. Fortunately very little is crucially immediate.

Of course there exists a need for efficient communication in real emergencies, especially in the violent, uncertain times evident in our time. There are truly useful applications for Twitter-like applications. Knowing that the highway you drive to work has an hour backup can save time and aggravation. In-time information suits these reactive applications perfectly.

The concision required by the 140 character limit can challenge one to focus and think before thumbing. Concise is nice in its place, but consider the following tweet:

Hamlet here.Denmark stinks.Dad walks@midnight;Mom weds UncleC.’Phelia tops herself.Anybody ask me?Like I so don’t care.Crossed swords. Oops!
Thanks to Twitter concision you will not need those theatre tickets. The Hamlet experience is already yesterday. Tweet on to the next text thing. (The 55%-ers are grateful that Shakespeare wasn’t a tweeter, although he almost has as many followers as Oprah.)

Twitter will probably not go away until someone thinks up an equally annoying next great experience. Unfortunately the die has been cast for social networking applications. Recently a Pennsylvania pair, intending a world record, sent 217 thousand text messages in one month. (To be fair these were not Tweets.) Most of these were concision personified—one word messages like “LOL”. The pair racked up a phone bill for $26,000. Unfortunately the mobile provider had to write the debt off because the individuals had an unlimited no cost texting contract. The wife of one of these record breakers gave up trying to reach him by phone. Hopefully there were no real emergencies to address. Of course she wouldn’t have had the chance to tell her thumbilicious twit if she wanted to leave him either. It’s an ill wind…

Author George Eliot wrote, “Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us evidence of the fact.” Thanks anyhow, Oprah. I’ll pass.