Whatever...

Is Twitter distorting public opinion?

By Lindsey Challis

I read an article last week that weighed up if Twitter is good for democracy – whether it’s a forum for debate that allows the wider populace to be heard, or a cluster of #sheep repeating the same sentiments.  

Admittedly, there is a lot of repetition on Twitter and the nature of the retweet only adds to this.  I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing. However, as Reddit pushes the most popular things in its community towards the ‘front page’, popular Twitter topics start trending. Redditors and Tweeters can instantly see the conversations shaping public discourse, whether that be an X Factor strop or the latest revelations regarding a shamed television presenter. 

It is foolish to believe that everyone reads the papers cover to cover, and as the pace of life increases and the volume of news content increases, the need to absorb information quickly is shaping how we consume and reflect on the news.  Twitter’s popularity is, in my opinion, indicative of how we want to know what’s going on around us – quick, to the point, and above all current. 

By the time news has hit the papers it’s often no longer new, the articles increasingly take an analytical approach, as they leave the breaking news for Twitter streams and websites.  But, rather than swaying the headlines and giving a disproportionate amount of attention to a single view, I would argue that Twitter brings more people into a discussion and makes more people think about a current affair.  It is far easier to overlook an article in a newspaper than ignore something all your friends and followers are tweeting about.  If more people know about the EU getting the Nobel Peace Prize for example, then it naturally follows that more people will have an opinion on it. 

Twitter also maximises the exposure of news around the internet.  In a conversation among friends it’s often difficult to get into a conversation you know little about, and it is certainly easier to be swayed by those discussing it, particularly if they are the ones to explain the issue in the first place.  With Twitter, the simplicity of being able to click on a link directing Tweeters to a news site and the ability to ‘Google it’, means that it is much more likely for the Tweeter to form their own opinion based on balanced information. Crucially, although the subject of an article may be dictated by its popularity on Twitter, the opinions generated, in it, from it and from the issue itself is more than ever likely to have a variety of influences. 

It’s true that this does completely depend on which Tweeters you follow, what Tweets you pay attention to and how much you think before you Tweet – but at the very least, Twitter makes it easier for users to be aware of news, to understand the issue in question, and far quicker to form an opinion on that debate.  Admittedly, people may be too quick to comment in some instances but that’s something which we’ve all been guilty of at some point!  Like it or loathe it, no-one wants to be left in the dark and Twitter is shinning a light on many of the conversations that are shaping society today.

The need for speed

By Monsur Ahmed 

Finally, after weeks of wrangling and threats of legal action, EE will be rolling out its 4G service with the auction for other spectrums to go ahead much sooner than originally expected. Which is great news considering not only will it provide much higher speeds (see BBC’s Rory Cellan-Jones impressive demo) but it also promises to boost economic growth as well as adding billions to the government’s coffers that could potentially be used to build thousands of new homes and create new jobs. 

Whilst the macro-economic benefits are very much welcomed, what does it mean for the mobile phone user? With DSL level speeds (up-to 30mb), its expected people will be able to watch videos from services such as iPlayer or 4oD, without interruption or buffering. In addition, with its much stronger and stable connection as well its greater range, it’ll be a welcome advancement for those in hard to reach or built up areas. However getting 4G may not be as attainable and accessible as EE’s executives would like us to think.

As everyone is well aware, you’ll need a brand new phone that’s 4G compatible – but not just any 4G phone. Any 4G phone bought before mid September, except the iPhone 5, won’t work on EE due to differing operating frequencies. So anyone who bought a Samsung S3 when it launched, frustratingly won’t be able to utilise its 4G capability.

More annoyingly the current iPhone 5 won’t work on O2 and Vodafone, when they release their own version of 4G next year. To remedy this O2 have offered a ‘promise’ to customers, allowing them to sign up for the iPhone 5, but then letting them upgrade to a 4G version as and when Apple releases a handset that will work on its network. Without getting into the T&Cs, O2 is essentially offering its customers the option of buying another handset for a slight discount or buying themselves out of their contract by trading in their current phone and paying the difference. It’s not much of an incentive and it’s expected that O2 will lose many of customers to EE when many of its iPhone legacy customers contracts run out. 

To add further difficulties, while switching to EE will be free for T-mobile and Orange users, the cost of using their 4G service certainly won’t be. Whilst the executives of EE have been vague around pricing plans, it’s expected there will be an extra levy to have the privilege of using 4G on top of your standard contract. EE’s executives have been keen to assert that their 4G service is intended for the mass market and will not be the preserve of the elite. Yet the extra charge on top of a new expensive contract may only be viable for those that really want the extra speed and are prepared to pay for it or those that can simply afford it. 

All in all, hopefully like all new technological innovations, I hope 4G will become more affordable in future, with cheaper handsets as well as cheaper contracts when EE has actually has competition for the service. 

 

LinkedIn becomes a follower

By Mike King

Maybe it’s my age that’s causing resistance to change, but news that LinkedIn has announced the addition of ‘follower’ functionality to its site doesn’t strike me as particularly welcome.  In an attempt to become another me-too social media site, the network for business users has formed a new panel of influencers and is allowing other LinkedIn users to follow them without having to connect directly. 

Apart from the glaring lack of originality in the idea (there’s already ample opportunity to follow these individuals elsewhere on the web) LinkedIn seems to be completely missing the point.  The site is very successful (it is by far the largest networking site for professionals with more than 175million users) and there’s a clear reason why - people find it useful as it is.  Its financial performance would support this, with revenue more than doubling year on year in its last completed year to December 2011. 

LinkedIn has clear differentiation from other sites (of course there are other online business networks like Plaxo and Viadeo, for example, but none that have the size and influence of LinkedIn).  It is great for keeping in touch with ex-colleagues and for tracking down people you’ve worked with in the past, or would like to work with in the future. Its clear focus and relative absence of crap and pointless noise compared to other social networking sites are precisely why it is so successful.    

LinkedIn is essentially a global directory of business professionals.  This may be a fairly basic proposition but there’s nothing wrong with that.  Trying to change itself to become something it isn’t strikes me as a mistake.