In a piece for the Age, Andrea Carson derides Twitter, at its worst, as little more than "a narcissistic medium of personal updates about nothing of consequence: a 'Daily Me' for a world that is obsessed with the individual and celebrity."1Carson, Andrea: 'Vacuous, shallow, banal - don't believe the twype' in The Age, Monday, 11th of October, 2010
I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding at the heart of this critique—an element of disappointment in the supposed 'digital-revolution'. Whenever tech commentators say that this changes everything2I'm looking at you, Apple, one should be wary. I certainly haven't been immune from the the luscious refreshment of technology KoolAid—I've early adopted and enthused about a range of technologies over the years. However, there's a difference between being excited about new possibilities and think that those possibilities are going to change human nature.
In all this discussion surrounding Twitter, Facebook and the implications of social networking, it's worth remembering that these are just tools for communication—they change the method in which we communicate and share, but not the content. The real game changer has been the instantaneous nature of the communication, and even then it only allows the dissemination of content to a broader audience more immediately. While Carson is busy admonishing the lack of political commentary present on Twitter and blogs, the real reason for the lack of debate is staring right at us.
I tend to be of the opinion that technology merely replicates human nature, in all its guises. Technology is neutral. So, while there may indeed be a lack of political coverage on Twitter, perhaps this is because most people really aren't that interested in politics? Consider the demographic split of a tool like Twitter: approximately 50% of visitors to the site were aged 35 or under.3Business Insider, 11th of February, 2010 In other words, those whose views, values and opinions are least likely to be represented in political debate are also the least likely to cover political chicanery. Golf clap, indeed.
While Marshall McLuhan may have argued quite convincingly that the "medium is the message", there is a danger in focusing too heavily on the medium, to the detriment of the actual messages being sent. While technology is defined by how it is used, we are the ones who use it. If people are volunteering to spill vacuous, shallow and banal details into the void, don't blame the medium. Blame the people.
