Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Communications Google Social Networks Networking The Internet Twitter

Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+? 456

suraj.sun writes with a ComputerWorld piece predicting the end of Twitter, at least in its current form. From the article: "It's only a matter of time before Twitter becomes a ghost town. While Google+ will soon do all the things Twitter does, Twitter can't support a long list of the things Google+ supports. Also on Google+, you can post pictures and videos directly in posts, launch immediately into a video chat, send your posts to nonmembers and even present all your posts marked 'Public' as a blog available to anyone with an Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Twitter Rendered Obsolete By Google+?

Comments Filter:
  • by williamhb ( 758070 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @10:13PM (#36879142) Journal

    Remember when because some of your colleagues were on ICQ or AOL but some were on Yahoo Messenger but some were on MSN but some had started to move to Skype etc you ended up having to have accounts with all of them because you don't control which account the person you need to speak to likes to use? And the techies amongst us started wanting tools like Kopete to deal with our plurality of accounts? That's the direction I see social networks going in. Already there are people who are Facebook friends whose Facebook status updates come from their Twitter app. Meanwhile many Twitter posts are there to point me to blog articles on blogs that I could also individually follow using RSS. And all those social communities hasn't, for instance, stopped me doing the old fashioned form of community of visiting and commenting on sites I like, like Slashdot. One more social network does not necessarily mean death to the rest. I don't see Twitter and Facebook following Bebo and MySpace into insignificance. It means yet another system I'll need to have an account on because people I need/want to follow/talk to use it. It does not mean I have a new single account that I consider to be my identity -- "me on the web" -- it means I'll have (well, if someone sends me an invite) an additional personally identifiable account on the Web. I think interoperability between social networks is going to be the next big battleground.

  • by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @10:50PM (#36879458)

    a random comment from google's post (https://plus.google.com/113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU#113116318008017777871/posts/VJoZMS8zVqU):

    Is this about advertising revenue and more accurate subscriber numbers to up ad revenue when introduced? Is the policy an attempt to give Google+ more credibility? Forgive my bluntness, but I don't believe for a moment that you truly think the naming policy is enforceable. What is the REAL reason behind the policy against anonymity here?

    I think that guy hit it on the nail. google's ONLY customers are the advertising companies, the ad-men. they want to deliver 'more accurate' info to those bastards.

    "oh, its so that everyone can trust each other".

    liars. don't piss in my cornflakes and tell me its really milk. we are not that stupid.

    and most of us who know better are NOT going to play your 'must use real names' game. the government and pretty much everyone else who wants to sniff the net LOVES the idea of removing anonymity.

    don't give in. keep your pseudo name. its one of the few things we still have left in the 'free internet'. it was here long before companies came on and ruined things. we must demand that we not give this bit of freedom up!

    fuck you google. just fuck you. the smarter ones here will not play your 'target me, better!' game.

  • by Bieeanda ( 961632 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @11:53PM (#36879882)
    Seriously, this is 'Will Wave Eat E-Mail' all over again. No. It has long strings attached. It has plenty of bells and whistles, but this is comparing apples and fruit baskets, or a can opener with a Swiss army knife. Sometimes all you want is an apple for your teacher, and sure you can cut meat, whittle wood, read fine print, tweeze splinters and even open cans with your knife, but it'll be faster and cheaper if you just go out to the kitchen and use the tool that was designed for that and nothing else.
  • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @12:00AM (#36879914) Journal
    Or maybe an edited version?

    For those of us who have never used twitter, is there an edited, "best of" to convince us to use it?

    I googled "best of twitter", but it appears to be an reductio ad absurdum situation - all the top links seem to want me to follow some twitter account...

    Is there compelling twitter content I am missing?
  • Re:But... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by djradon ( 105400 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @12:46AM (#36880134) Homepage Journal

    The Greater Internet Jerkwad Theory:
    Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Jerkwad

    As TheGratefulNet suggests, anonymity is very important. At least in the sense that we value intellectual freedom. Sometimes the quality/range/expressive power of the discussion improves too, so I guess we need it as a comunication tool. I don't know that we NEED tons of anonymity to survive as a species, but it does seem like one of the more enlightened human rights and a good thing to try to preserve.

    For now, we have plenty of technologies and forums supporting some degree of anonymity, and I don't see them going away just because Google+ landed on the individuation side. Bad news (for + users): Google+ will lose some userbase and some amount of the good things that anonymous communication can foster. Good news (for lovers of aliases-based communication): some other, less-omniscient service will get a market opportunity they wouldn't have had if Google+ allowed aliases.

    FWIW, I have a + alias-as-name and will probably drop 'em like Friendster if they make me change it. I already have a RealIdentity-style social network. (On Facebook. For now. Can't wait to try the Great Opensource Distributed Social Network that I know one of y'all is going to invent.)

  • Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by realityimpaired ( 1668397 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2011 @08:08AM (#36881940)

    And what about those of us who share names with celebrities, or things like that? The case of "Mike" Bolton from Office Space does actually happen in real life (case in point, if you google my name, you either come up with stories about somebody in Arizona who pissed off a Dell tech support agent, or you come up with somebody who's working as a model in the UK).

    And that's to say nothing of people who've legally changed their names in protest, or because it's funny. I had a prof in University who changed his last name to Strangelove when he got his PhD. There's also been a fairly well publicized incident last year in Canada because somebody who had changed his last name to Nobody was arrested during the G20 protests, and got abused by cops who thought he was lying about his name.... What's going to happen when somebody with a name like that signs up to Google+?

    I, for one, do *not* want to have to send them a copy of my driver's license just to prove that I am who I say I am. Frankly, it's not their fucking job to police anonymity on the Internet. I could sign up saying that I'm the Queen of Sheba, and they have no business asking me to prove that, because it's just an Internet site. If I was applying for a job, or wanting to run for public office, I could see the requirement for some proof of identity, but it's just a social network, and if they can't see the difference then I don't want to have anything to do with their stupidity.

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry