Why Twitter is crap for conversations – but great for comedians

Next Story

The 'Google Store' is two benches in a PC World. An Apple store this is not.


Robert Scoble has been riffing on a theme of late, namely where on earth – heavens to murgatroyd – are we supposed to have social conversations now they are split up between Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and Blip.pl (ok admittedly that last one is a Twitter clone in Poland – but you get my drift. Hey, the Poles like it…).

Robert seems to think that Google+ is better for conversations than Twitter or Facebook because of one word: “SEARCH!”

Here’s the skinny:

“See, I can search for all associated items here. I can’t over on Facebook… For one, photos look better here…. Why does Twitter suck for conversations? Because you can’t easily bundle tweets together … Facebook has more people, so conversations with your real-life family and friends will probably happen over there unless you get them to visit [Google+].”

And of course you can also have Google Hangout conversations. (Hmmn… whatever happened to Robert’s obsession with Quora?).

However, he points back and forth between Google and Facebook because “I won’t have my conversations held hostage by any one company.” (Personally I thought that was what owning your own domain / blog and comments were for).

But, there is one place where conversations are simply unnecessary, and that is when they are in the hands of comedic writers like Charlie Brooker.

Who needs to have a conversation when you prefer the feudal nature of Twitter, where huge nodes like Brooker can pick and choose who they pick upon and who they ignore?

Thus we reprint here how, masterfully, there really is no point in ‘having a conversation’ on Twitter when you are this funny. (Read from the bottom)