Today's NY Times Magazine has an in-depth exploration of the microblogging phenomenon brought on by sites such as Facebook, Flickr and Twitter. Its author Clive Thompson (whose Twitter feed updates in a widget to the right of the article) makes a case that the incessant posting of snippets of people's lives represents more just than a signal that we are in an era of oversharing. He says that over time one's tweets become "like thousands of dots making a pointillist painting" and that following someone's feed "for a day...and it begins to feel like a short story; follow it for a month, and it’s a novel." While some fear that too many of these "parasocial relationships" will crowd out real ones, Thompson ultimately makes the case that having so much of the minutia of our lives revealed online "brings back the dynamics of small-town life, where everybody knows your business."




don't follow it and it disappears into the worthless ether where it came from.
I must be getting old, because the I couldn't care less about the useless shit people put on their Twitter. The Facebook update is abit more interesting because what I see as the diversity in comments, but honestly, do I really care that someone I know twitter's that he's "at the airport" or "getting a smoothie"? Hell, no.
I will never look at a twitter page. I'm already bombarded with people on the train yelling into a phone...that they are on the train.
www.forgotten-ny.com
I don't really mind if people post all their daily photos on Flickr. I just wish they would tag appropriately instead of bombing their photos with every conceivable tag that's even distantly relevant, severely reducing the usefulness of the search engine.
That was a really enjoyable article.