In response to this comic posted in one of our PLP communities, I left this [somewhat edited] reply:

May come as a surprise, but I continue to be skeptical of Twitter as a “conversation” platform.  From a sharing and finding resources standpoint, I totally get it. Depending on who you follow, it can be a great, great way of finding great videos, articles, news, artifacts, etc. And from the occasional back and forth social banter point of view, ok, I get that too. But I continue to find myself impatient with the extended attempts at conversation. For example, I just cannot do #edchat type of stuff due to how disjointed it feels. And frankly, there is a missing depth to any back and forth on Twitter which 140 characters just can’t convey. I wonder that if we make 140 characters the main part of the way we communicate with one another without spending some of our time in more extended give and take that we will be losing something important in the process. Is Twitter really that powerful, or is it more an easy way to enter into the “conversation,” one that doesn’t require as much time and thought and therefore allows us to check the “connected” box but leave the more difficult, more time consuming participation at the door?

Just questions. Bracing for the replies… ;0)

I’m choosing not to follow the flow as much these days. I’m posting and sharing using BigTweet, and I’m mining Tweets through search feeds, but I’m not spending nearly as much time in TweetDeck as I did in the past. Not saying I never stop by, but I’m going there less and less.

In Linchpin, Seth Godin asked “Where did your art go while you were Tweeting?”(134) And I’ve been wondering the same thing. Is Twitter our art? Really?

Release the Twounds. ;0)