Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This quote stands out:

Although most of you call these sites "social networking sites," there's almost no networking going on. People use these sites to connect to the people they know. In other words, even if they could talk across the divide, they might not anyhow.

I'm curious, what about Twitter (which I still don't really understand, but wonder about)? By keeping an eye on trends, it seems that users read comments from everyone, regardless of class, ethnic, or cultural background, or follower status. Or is Twitter's user base too limited to tech early adopters (as all the "most Twitter users post one message and leave" articles suggest), so it makes up a kind of "ghetto" by itself? Alternatively --- even if people use the same system, they just follow their interests and so inherently talk about different things, and therefore do not intersect?

EDIT: Looks like the author discusses this closer to the end, noting that people who followed the Iranian election on Twitter probably do not follow celebrity gossip trends, and vice versa.



By keeping an eye on trends, it seems that users read comments from everyone, regardless of class, ethnic, or cultural background, or follower status.

You assume that people use Twitter to keep an eye on trends. I'm not sure that more casual Twitter users do that. I know a lot of people who use Twitter purely as a status-update mechanism, so they can communicate with their friends, figure out where other people in the office are going for lunch, etc.

I have a strong suspicion that the most-common use case for Twitter is not using it to follow trends or meet new people, and instead is very much like other social "networking" sites -- as an easy way to stay in touch with people the user already knows in real life.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: