Ultimately, the greatest magnetism compelling my continued usage of Twitter is its amazing ability to attach to networks with little to no barriers. The danger in that, of course, is that those attachments tend to want to maintain that relationship via Twitter. This is known as network effects. Our bond as a power is only sustained through our mutual attachment to a particular network. If neither of us can find a reasonable substitute, we tend to desire to tolerate whatever pressures and dislikes we have accrued from the shared network.
One of the reasons I actually stopped using Facebook, only allowed Asylum on Facebook as purely content stream is due to the network I brought to Facebook being my family and high school classmates. The barriers to extending my network beyond those that I brought to it are high enough with the exception of playing games that allow for a breach of the particular custom of only friending those close to a user. In turn, Asylum has suffered on Facebook with regard to reach. I can have a post in the face of over fourteen thousand users on Twitter with an average interaction rate of at least ten rebroadcasts and a similar number of bookmarks(favorites). On Facebook, I am happy if I can reach more than two persons. It has taken me around the span of a year to reach one hundred Facebook likes. The application simply does not meet my requirements given the sort of work I would have to commit to in order to utilize their API, or the code necessary to connect Asylum to it automagically and seamlessly.
For others, I would say that I do believe Facebook to be a fantastic curating system, however. I do like how Facebook posts allow for an extended amount of characters to express one’s self and to present content. Facebook reminds me of the forums that were once the independent and ubiquitous form of social media of the Interwebs. I am also interested in Facebook’s advertising system that seems affordable enough, I just do not have the spare capital to test its benefits to Asylum presently. There are also the privacy concerns that have always been the company’s detested characteristic.
Moving forward with Twitter also concerns me. While I do applaud their ability to build around a community of spectacle with such applications as Periscope which challenged LiveStream, and its video functionality which challenged Vine, I also wanted to throw my phone through the flatscreen when they altered the rebroadcasting functionality. For as much as the Twitter decision makers are obviously watching the community of protesters and media personalities, they often miss the more core power users that do not often receive that type of attention certain spectacle brings. Twitter has for as long I have used the application, about five or more years now, been more concerned with celebrity and the like. That is an achilles heel. The devaluing of other accounts without blue check marks does not seem to be wise for a purely capitalistic venture, and I am pretty sure it can only bank on the selling point of connecting noncelebrity users with celebrities that do not engage directly for so long.
As a microblogging, sms(text) like service, the community formed under its more salacious and spectacle driven content is the core of its success. The culture formed there is the Twitter culture. Until Twitter recognizes those that drive that particular culture in tangible forms, the same sort of forms it rewards those that barely use it, I will always have my eyes out for the next player on the block willing to compensate my free content providing.