<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Samuelson&#039;s Media &#62; Blog &#187; skepticism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.baltimorediamonds.com/blog/tag/skepticism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.baltimorediamonds.com/blog</link>
	<description>&#34;News, banter, and perhaps a word or two about jewelry now and then.&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:59:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Twitter Changes the Rules?</title>
		<link>http://www.baltimorediamonds.com/blog/2009/09/twitter-changes-the-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.baltimorediamonds.com/blog/2009/09/twitter-changes-the-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:11:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Garth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skepticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social pecking order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terms of service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.samuelsonsdiamonds.com/blog/?p=193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This doesn't seem like a change in policy, but it is being billed as one. Twitter wants in on the ad action, and 9/10/2009 marks the crossing of the Rubicon.... There is a follow limit. It seems to be hard and fast set at 2000, but what about the thousands of people who are following more?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Biz Stone</em> (or so we might think) dropped me a message my gmail inbox yesterday, indicating that Twitter had changed its terms of service. What has <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/2009/09/twitters-new-terms-of-service.html " target="_blank">caught most people&#8217;s eye is the following</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Advertising—In the Terms, we leave the door open for advertising. We&#8217;d like to keep our options open as we&#8217;ve said before.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is of great interest to larger players, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/32790933" target="_blank">especially some big media</a>:  Who in the main seems skeptical (I will leave it to the reader to determine who &#8216;some analysts&#8217; are):</p>
<blockquote><p>Some analysts are skeptical that advertising will catch on in a meaningful way on social networks, arguing that companies are reluctant to juxtapose their brands with unpredictable, and potentially offensive, user-generated content.</p></blockquote>
<p>This doesn&#8217;t seem like a change in policy, but it is being billed as one. Twitter wants in on the ad action, and 9/10/2009 marks the crossing of the Rubicon.</p>
<p>Another important thing for twitterers to remember: There is <a href="http://help.twitter.com/forums/10713/entries/14959" target="_blank">a follow limit</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>If you follow too many people, there is no way you can keep up with everyone&#8217;s updates in your home page.  If you&#8217;re following more than 2000 people, you&#8217;re missing quite a few updates from many people you follow.  You can view a profile page to catch up with someone&#8217;s latest updates.</p></blockquote>
<p><strong>It seems to be hard and fast set at 2000,</strong> but what about the thousands of people who are following more? It is unclear how this effects everyone, but here is my analysis:</p>
<p>Following does not imply friendship, and Twitter is encouraging instead the use of following for listening, and t<em>he use of @ messages as a more proper way of communicating</em>. This means that users actual relationships are <strong>entirely informal as far as the system is concerned</strong> (an interesting choice) and given that Tweekdeck automatically searches for &#8216;@yourname&#8217; messages it is actually pointless to follow people you don&#8217;t want to hear from unless they address you.</p>
<p>This doesn&#8217;t address the issue of social pecking order, of personal pride and prestige, but I would (almost) say Twitter is getting themselves out of the business of providing it.</p>
<p>If you want to hear from me, give me a shout at <a href="http://www.twitter.com/riverc" target="_blank">@riverc</a>. Or you can hit up Ron at <a href="http://www.twitter.com/diamondbuyer" target="_blank">@diamondbuyer</a> or any of us at <a href="http://www.twitter.com/samuelsonsrocks">@samuelsonsrocks</a>. Nothing to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.baltimorediamonds.com/blog/2009/09/twitter-changes-the-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

