How has twitter changed social networking? Do you think it is more popular than Facebook, or less?
Do you think celebrity culture will change now that celebrities are so accessible via Twitter? And do you think that the celebrities are usually physically operating their Twitter, or is it some sort of assistant?
I recently joined Twitter. But, as of now, I don't have any real interest in tweeting, I just am using it as another medium to follow the news. I don't see Twitter as a SNS in the same way as Facebook--Facebook is geared towards college aged students and Twitter is broader. I think celebrity culture is more affected by Twitter than Facebook--the scrolling Tweets at the bottom of E! on award-show red carpet coverage is an example of that. Celebrities appear to be closer to use normal people than they used to be (see: the outburst over Justin Beiber's haircut..which he Tweeted a picture about).
ReplyDeleteI think Twitter has changed social networking in many ways. It seems like news and gossip travel much quicker on Twitter as opposed to Facebook. Twitter may be more of a direct line to the celebrity than Facebook is. At least in my experience, the celebrities or music groups that I "like" on Facebook seem to post very generic things, nothing too personal. Twiiter seems like the celebrities are more involved and make it more personal to people. I think for the most part that the celebrities tweet by themselves. If their tweets were put together by some PR team or an assistant, I doubt some of the stupid things that celebrities say would be posted. In regard to the question of which is more popular, Twitter or Facebook, I think the two serve different purposes. So comparing their popularity is difficult. Facebook is more peer-to-peer or friend-to-friend interaction. Twitter can also accomplish those things, but seems to be more effective in following the news and opinions of public figures.
ReplyDeleteI've been a Twitter use for over two years now. One of the main things I've noticed with celeb culture on Twitter is that it's easier for people to become celebrities, although on a smaller level. For example, I'm a huge fan of Glee, and there is a glee club on the show called the Warblers. All of the actors/singers who play the Warblers have quickly gathered a huge following on Twitter. They are mostly small parts, with few or no lines, yet because we can follow them online, these men have become famous. Now, outside of the Glee fans on Twitter, no one really knows who they are. So, in this way, Twitter has created small-time celebrities. I agree with Paul that Facebook serves a different purpose, which seems to be more finding out official information, while Twitter tends to be more informal.
ReplyDeleteAs a Twitter user for the past two years, I would say that Twitter does not have as much of an impact on social networking as Facebook. However, I would say that Twitter is a more powerful form of social networking than Facebook. As we have seen in the past month with the incidents in Madison, Egypt and Libya, Twitter has huge political clout. Comments, videos and images posted on Twitter have been broadcasted all over the world on reputable news networks. This information, sent from abroad, is immediate, spreads like wildfire and generally does not involve one having to be “friends” with whoever is communicating the information.
ReplyDeleteCelebrity culture has already changed because of Twitter. Entertainers have been able to build their reputation and following via Twitter by contacting fans and posting information about their work. Most of the people I follow on Twitter are musicians I like to listen to. By following them, I can find out more about their upcoming projects, concerts and other random information. This past summer I worked in the entertainment industry and I can most definitely confirm that artists do operate their own Twitters, which for me, makes it even more interesting to read.