Two things influence my views.

At one end of the spectrum, this post (http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/05/18/welcom…), of only 600 approx words, demonstrated to me the strengths of an open conversation online. The 138 comments, when viewed together, are far superior to the original post that inspired them. In a matter of days, a dialogue and series of views emerged that, if presented as an essay or book, would have taken months, maybe years, for an author to assemble. The conversation attracted real heavy-hitters from new and old media news desks. This is something that traditional media could never have achieved — and the sum of the views presented was more comprehensive than any individual could ever provide (in spite of the odd moronic comment).

At the other end of the spectrum, check out the views of Jaron Lanier. He was one of the original internet / new media evangelists (I believe he popularised the term 'Virtual Reality'). Recently he has done an about-face (http://www.slate.com/id/2239466). What impressed me was his recent comments at a tech conference where he asked everyone in the room to refrain from tweeting and blogging during his presentation. He asked only one thing: Try listening for a change!

As you say, filtering is the key. But not just by the end user. By the organisation choosing the channel. A blog might be great for a journalistic debate. Twitter might be a highly effective tool for political activism in Iran. But both absolutely, positively SUCK when thrust into an inappropriate context (like giving a newspaper to a blind man).

Thanks for being part of the conversation Simon. And sleep well!

In the end though I find it seriously hard work to wade through the massive amount of data on so many fronts. I also get distracted by what i view as 'moronic' comments and end up wearing my grumpy pants.

Filtering is the key. Either I have to learn it or the tech will get better at it or am I just wandering down the same path as the chinese government?

I need some sleep. Thanks for the great site.

I look at Twitter the same way that I look comments posted at the foot of a blog or article (like this one).

Some comments don't help the argument. Others are presented to push an agenda. But some are extremely meaningful. And en masse they present a picture that no single journalist or analyst could ever compete with.

For example, if you're interested in the power of Twitter as a social tool in elections, check out how it was used in the recent South Korean elections.

This article from the Harvard Business Review is interesting:
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/06/twitters_new_ro…

Also, in the most recent Iran elections, Twitter had to postpone scheduled maintenance because Twitter had become vital to the outcome of an election, where not everyone had computers, but many people had mobile phones.

Here is an article on the Iran elections from Time Magazine:
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/irania…

In Australia, Twitter is still in its infancy, like blogs ten years ago — and the comments reflect this (indeed, Twitter is often called a micro-blogging platform). I'm not sure whether it'll gain the same social influence here, but it's entirely possible.

However, I agree, the decision to syndicate tweets was a poor one. Too much interest in being 'novel' rather than on the main act. However, people probably said the same thing about 'the worm' first time around too.

But it begs asking just how the country can return to a surplus by 2012/13, as guaranteed by Mr. Swan, when Prime Minister Gillard is going around the country throwing money around, left right and centre, to get the voters on her side. Perhaps she is no good with figures? Perhaps she is no good with promises? Perhaps it’s all just political spin? Whatever her motivation (let me not be accused of making judgements), one only has to look at some of the figures being promised, and then ask the question – just who is going to pay for all of this when we already have a deficit of $57.1 billion dollars.

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-g…

These commentary aremeaningless twaddle set to murky the waters and make real information and people with some form of value to provide just that bit harde r to find.

Social media just highlights, underlines and bolds the fact that not everyone should have a voice. …. case in point.