Skip Links

Network World

  • Social Web 
  • Email 
  • Close

(Comma separation for multiple addresses)
Your Message:

6 things that could ruin Twitter (and 5 that won't)

By Mike Elgan , Computerworld , 04/20/2009
  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

Twitter is the hottest thing in technology right now. U.S. visits to Twitter.com more than doubled during the month of March alone.

Slideshow: Top 12 Twitter tools
12 CIOs who Twitter

All that success is prompting the Debbie Downers out there to speculate about dangers lurking in the shadows.

Well, I'm here to join them, because Twitter really is a good thing and it really could be ruined. But I'm also here to disagree with some of the doom-and-gloom scenarios.

Sure, it can go the other way. Twitter, according to some, can wreck other things. For example, Twitter can ruin moral values, health, careers, Hollywood, brands and even the movies.

But what are the threats to Twitter itself? Here are the six things that could ruin Twitter -- and the five things that can't.

The six things that could ruin Twitter

1. Buying friends. CNN announced Friday that it had acquired @CNNBrk, a Twitter feed that serves up links to CNN breaking news stories. Now that people are rewarded for selling followers, an entire underground economy will probably emerge. Perps will use dirty tricks to build a large number of followers, then sell those accounts to big corporations. The end result will be a large number of accounts that suddenly turn into sources of Twitter spam, and a large number of users who feel they've been tricked.

2. Username squatting. When I started following @CNNBrk, I thought I was following CNN itself. I didn't learn until yesterday that it was just some dude who grabbed the CNNBrk name, copied the CNN logo and served up links to CNN content. CNN's acquisition of @CNNBrk showed everyone that username squatting on Twitter pays. Expect to see millions of people signing up using trademarked IP, hoping to cash in later.

3. Forgetting to grow a business model. The trouble with not making money is that Twitter won't be able to keep up with demand. Which means more fail whales, slowdowns and problems. (The fail whale is a picture that's displayed on Twitter when the system breaks, usually because of excess activity.)

4. Invasive advertising. Ads on Twitter would be OK. Paying to not see ads would be OK, too. But ads that cover the screen or otherwise delay posts could harm Twitter badly. Twitter is about speed and brevity. Big ads that are fine elsewhere won't work on Twitter.

5. Spam. The good news about Twitter is that everything is instantly searchable. The bad news is that everything is instantly searchable. Stories abound about a user whining about some product only to receive a quick e-mail from the company they complained about.

Companies are using Twitter's great search tools to find out in real time what people are saying about them. This could all be further automated. I'd hate to see an entire ecosystem forming around the triggering of spam to your e-mail in-box every time you tweet something. This spam could also be used as a form of "punishment" that stifles criticism. Another form of spam is unwanted ads sent as direct messages. Once this is automated, our direct-message in-boxes could be filling up with garbage. Spam ruined e-mail, and it could ruin Twitter.

  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

Comments (13)
Login
Forgot your account info?

Hijacked Twitter Accounts Used in Webcam Scheme By lilykudrow on April 22, 2009, 11:47 amHijacked Twitter Accounts Used in Webcam Scheme Twitter 2.0 Add-on for fring Available for WinMo and Symbian A good read

Reply | Read entire comment

warningBy Anonymous on April 22, 2009, 12:28 pmhttp://www.twitter.com/filthyrichmond will destroy twitter.

Reply | Read entire comment

illegal?By Anonymous on April 22, 2009, 12:53 pmFor #2 shouldn't he have been sued for copyright infringement for copying their logo without permission and not rewarded by having the name purchased?

Reply | Read entire comment

TweetBy Anonymous on April 22, 2009, 1:10 pmGood ole Tweet will never die! RT www.privacy.pro.tc

Reply | Read entire comment

no, it would come under fair use...By Anonymous on April 22, 2009, 2:08 pmno, it would come under fair use. He is not pretending to be CNET, nowhere did he actually say he was. He was just a fan, providing links to CNET content. If they...

Reply | Read entire comment

squatting doesn't payBy Anonymous on April 22, 2009, 5:52 pmI'm pretty sure CNN did not pay for CNNBrk. Name squatting is against Twitter's Terms of Service, so I'm sure CNN didn't have a problem acquiring the name for free.

Reply | Read entire comment

View all comments

Add comment
Anonymous comments subject to approval. Register here for member benefits.
Have a NetworkWorld account? Log in here. Register now for a free account.

Videos

rssRss Feed