I like Twitter, really I do, but I don’t go for all this commentary on its future as a platform. But when my good mate @voleshafter begins using it, and then (let’s leave @stephenfry and @wossy aside for a moment) Tim Lovejoy (sorry Tim, I couldn’t be bothered to look for your twag) talks about it on the the gentile BBC2 show “Something for the Weekend”, then I’ll take my time to give some views.

First, it’s so completely open (to abuse as much as API work) and – a lot of the time – it’s so rubbish as it falls over a lot, that I think that it’s easy to consider it “mostly harmless” and therefore one can form an emotional connection with it quite quickly.

Second, it demonstrates the basis of social networking at a level that is barely “above the tin”. I can almost see the database structure as I’m using it. Where the rest of the SN space (Facebook etc.) offer additional functionality (or some kind of domain advantage), Twitter only offers up the minimum ruleset to provide the service. The delicious bit is simply the etiquette and behaviours that have been adapted by its users and developers to deliver all manner of capability.

Third, it provides a different communication mechanism (which is why it’s attractive to brands – particularly niche brands – and celebrities):

• Limiting the size of communication means that there is limited investment from anyone on the network so there is understanding and acceptance that although the message is personal, it doesn’t require a personal response. (cf. Fan Mail, or Help Centres)
• Despite this, there’s an intimacy here that isn’t present in blogging. It’s hard to carry traditional corporate or branded messaging on Twitter, the message has to “be real”. The smart brands (and celebrities) are using it for actual connection and analysis.

Does it have a future? Is it a platform, or a protocol? Is blogging dead? Blah blah blah.

I think the main thing that we can learn from the (early) success of Twitter is that communication on the net is in its infancy. Seemingly crude communication techniques such as this can vastly overachieve against established protocols (or the well understood) such as email as the reasons for wanting to communicate, and the benefits of doing so, change over time. The world (that is, one’s world) has expanded greatly in the past couple of years, and the existing services make plays to enabling the benefit of that current context. As one’s world contracts – once the need for filtering and localised relevance hits home – then we may again need a different set of techniques.