a few points:

firstly, re: anonymity, you’ll find that my name, ‘Steve’, is linked to the homepage of this site – it’s me, I’m not even remotely anonymous in this context. You’ve got almost 2000 pages of context without leaving the domain.

secondly, “what’s the value of knowing that someone’s having a glass of wine?” – depends on how you measure value?

Dr Murray: “hi, is Trevor there?”
Trevor: “yeah, it’s me, hi Doc”
Dr Murray: “hi Trevor, what you up to?”
Trevor: “having a glass of wine, just now”
Dr Murray: “WHAT ON EARTH WAS THE VALUE IN TELLING ME THAT??? HOW DARE YOU FILL MY EARS WITH YOUR TRIFLING. TRIVAL NONSENSE???”
etc.

An exaggeration, clearly, but the point being, single sentences aren’t what make twitter of value, like any conversation. It’s ongoing development of context, narrative and relationship. As Adam has so eloquently put it, you develop a deeper understanding of the people you’re talking to by finding out what they’re up to, what they’re interested in and what they value online.

The point being that everything is bigger than Twitter – twitter’s all about what happens cumulatively by the many connections and overlaps, and what happens beyond its walls. The links, the onward journey, the meeting up in person, the cultural discoveries that happen because of it… But the environment of it is vital to all those things happening.

thirdly, “It is quite simple to see the commercial benifits [sic] as all these mediums provide an immediate stage which would otherwise remain invisible. Many more established singers eg Lily Allen have used their blogs quite successfully for self promotion by staging “spats” – or just slagging someone else off to get free gossip magazine coverage”

But again it’s a lot bigger than that. If one comes at Twitter as a purely marketing/promo platform, it’s woefully frustrating. I know a lot of people who’ve tried, and get followed by people every day who are trying to get people to listen to their music, buy their product, visit their site… Just having a twitter feed doesn’t help. If you’ve already got a whole load of media-capital (your Lily Allen example), it can be cashed in on Twitter, but that doesn’t really interest me, not operating in a ‘pop’ music space at all, and certainly not in one occupied by glossy-mag-fueled celebs.

You’re welcome to not like it, not get it, not see any value in it (of course), but your many pronouncements about what twitter ‘is’ smack of the same kind of luddite, narrow thinking that Oliver James was peddling in the original article.

Take Steve for example. I’ve met him twice in London and Yorkshire and watched him perform once in a house concert in Edingburgh broadcast on ustream. The context of both meetings were business, so that would qualify him as an acquaintance. Via Twitter, I’ve had the advantage of getting to know him better in a way I otherwise would not have done. I have a broader picture of the man and been introduced to a community of excellent, off-main stream musicians that will inform our next meeting. So he is now more than acquaintance. That enriches my life. And the enrichment is not a replacement for life, but the addition of something new.

I first engaged with Twitter properly when Steve introduced me to its potential as a viral campaigning tool. Note the use of the indefinite article there. As someone who assist campaign strategists with the technological side of what they do, I see these approaches as complementary, adding to other strategies making a cohesive whole. I’ve probably been using Twitter just over a month now, and its potential in this arena is demonstratable. I’ve witnessed it used to co-ordinate peaceful, legitimate protesters at G20. I’ve seen it complement the Gurkha Justice campaign. But one would be a fool to suggest that Twitter won that campaign.

But the value of Twitter (or other similar technologies) lies not in Twitter itself, but how you choose to engage with it. It is now one of my main sources of information about new live music (I’ve always preferred non-mainstream musical styles, so finding out about them can be difficult) and on-line performances.

I notice a criticism leveled above included the charge that “it’s reality TV without pictures”. And great, if you choose to engage with it in that way. My wife has a lifelong interest in social narrative, and how people’s stories interweave. So when she first joined Twitter, she set about following everyone who shared her first name, Sian. And a hell of a load followed her back, thinking it was a fun idea. She interacts with it as a series of slices of life, snapshots, restricted by the medium itself. Is it art? Reality TV without the pictures? I don’t think you can answer that question without actually looking at the manner in which it is engaged, because unlike Reality TV, it is genuinely interactive and not controlled by a media company for maximum media impact and therefore financial profit. Reality TV is something you are passively fed.

And Dr M… I did warn you to (metaphorically) stick yer fingers in yer ears

He is highly active and visible on the internet, interacting with fans and other musicians and using web technology such as Twitter to promote his own career

It is quite simple to see the commercial benifits as all these mediums provide an immediate stage which would otherwise remain invisible. Many more established singers eg Lily Allen have used their blogs quite successfully for self promotion by staging “spats” – or just slagging someone else off to get free gossip magazine coverage. It is cheap and effective means of marketing but as Friends Reunited and countless other dotcom ventures have shown they will gradually subside as people realise their limitations. Or alternatively have an “off line experience” with another human – usally called a meeting. But to try and make this the 21st century equivilent of the telelphone is stretching it a little for most people.

thank heavens for the internet – otherwise we might’ve thought the ‘Dr’ before your chosen user name meant you knew something…