Megan Garber at the invaluable Nieman Lab posted a wonderful essay Friday breaking down how we can think about the kind of communication that Twitter allows. While most takes on this topic are glancing or arguments from intuition, Garber goes a step (or ten) deeper. Here's the kickoff:
What is Twitter, actually? (No, seriously!) And what type of communication is it, finally? If we're wondering why heated debates about Twitter's effect on information/politics/us tend to be at once so ubiquitous and so generally unsatisfying ... the answer may be that, collectively, we have yet to come to consensus on a much more basic question: Is Twitter writing, or is it speech?
And here's her conclusion:
The point is to acknowledge, online, a new environment -- indeed, a new culture -- in which writing and speech, textuality and orality, collapse into each other. Speaking is no longer fully ephemeral. And text is no longer simply a repository of thought, composed by an author and bestowed upon the world in an ecstasy of self-containment.
It's all really great stuff and worth your Monday morning reading time, whether you tweet or not. It pairs well with Atlantic correspondent Tim Carmody's 2009 Snarkmarket post, "Towards a Theory of Secondary Literacy," which glosses the work of Walter Ong, the Jesuit priest and scholar who basically created the vocabulary we use to talk about these things.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.