Re: Tweet This: I Don't Care

[Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>]

DC to me:

> > ...I realized another thing I really dislike about Twitter _and_ that I
> > suspect is a major part of its attraction for a certain (rather large)
> > portion of its users, and it really is about "shouting into the
> > darkness".  I believe that a lot of Twitter's (sub-conscious) attraction
> > to a lot of its users (not all) is that it caters perfectly to the
> > personality type that conspicuously and VERY LOUDLY shout into their cell
> > phones in public places.  
>
> I'm wondering what your basis for this belief is?  In what sense do
> you think Twitter caters to the personality that shouts very loudly
> into a cellphone in public places?  I don't really see the connection;
> people who post to Twitter are only going to be heard by people who
> explicitly listen to ("follow") them, not by everyone who happens to
> be standing nearby. 

You read the article I linked to about the hopeful Cisco employee?

He was obviously shouting in the darkness _AND_ unaware that that was 
what he was doing.

Sure, he _could_ have set his tweeting "private" so only those he agreed 
to see his emanations could, BUT HE HAD NOT.

On Twitter he was just like all those loud, stupid people you hear 
shouting into their cell phones in public places all round the world (and 
doubly so in the US, it seems).

> > _They_ are unawre of this, just as they are unaware that they are shouting
> > into their cell phones.  
>
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting that people are unaware of?  I
> doubt that many people who post to Twitter are unaware that anyone on
> the net can read what they post; that's what Twitter is for, after
> all. 

And just while (some) cell phone shouters may not be unaware that they 
are broadcasting themselves whereever they are, they continue apparently 
unaware of the possible consequences.

I don't actually mind if people are this stupid, but I question the 
propriety of _enabling_ them to expose themselves...

> > Just because someone (older
> > than you) says "that's not a good thing/idea because [something I know
> > from the past]" does not make them a curmudgeon.  
>
> I have no idea whether or not you're older than me.  :)  I would put
> the odds at about 50/50.  And I have even less idea of the age of
> anyone else on this list.  And just to round out my ignorance, I'm not
> sure what corresponds to "[something I know from the past]" in your
> dislike of Twitter.  What past thing that I may have overlooked says
> that Twitter is probably not a good thing/idea? 

Hopefully the above answers that more completely for you.

I don't think that Twitter is totally useless, but it is almost certainly 
bordering on totally unnecessary as there are/have been other mecahnisms 
to achieve its useful functionality that suffer fewer/none of its 
undesirable features.


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald



_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.