What Are You Tweeting For?
/Klout and Why the Design of Social Networking Matters by Nicholas Thompson, The New Yorker:
Social media has a fraught relationship with neurosis. Obsessive people are essential to sites like Facebook and Twitter. They add energy and buzz. Their identities get tied up with their avatars, and that in itself makes the sites seem important. They provide much of the content. A study published last fall reported that twenty thousand users on Twitter provide half of what’s read there. But obsessives are dangerous, too. They can make the site seem creepy. Do I really want to check Twitter, Facebook, or Google Plus if all I see are the same thoughts, infinitely recycling, through the same minds? Is it fun to read anything from someone who seems to spend more time tweeting than living?
What Your Klout Score Really Means by Seth Stevenson, Epicenter, Wired.com:
Over time, I found my eyes drifting to tweets from folks with the lowest Klout scores. They talked about things nobody else was talking about. Sitcoms in Haiti. Quirky museum exhibits. Strange movie-theater lobby cards from the 1970s. The un-Kloutiest’s thoughts, jokes, and bubbles of honest emotion felt rawer, more authentic, and blissfully oblivious to the herd. Like unloved TV shows, these people had low Nielsen ratings — no brand would ever bother to advertise on their channels. And yet, these were the people I paid the most attention to. They were unique and genuine. That may not matter to marketers, and it may not win them much Klout. But it makes them a lot more interesting.