> Twitter is good for getting news faster, if you care about that; for
> making connections; for getting references to illuminating reading;
> and for reading some damn funny shit.
IMO, the Twitter-good and Twitter-bad crowds share the same basic assumption: that in and by themselves new technologies must provide immediate remedy to social and/or personal ills. To the extent the expectation is met for some, success; otherwise, failure. But no, they mustn't. Mostly, technologies reproduce and amplify the existing social tendencies, e.g. class struggle. They may shift the benefit/cost ratio -- a little or a lot -- in favor of one or another side in conflict. But these shifts open possibilities that are yet to be realized -- or, viewed from the other side, frustrated. It'd be interesting to see how Twitter, etc. is helping (or not) the left in different settings. I'd expect to find a mixed bag with preponderance on the side of failure. Everywhere, a portion of the left has a Luddite temperament (all new technologies will be used to reinforce the crap), which helps to turn the Twitter-bad scenario into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's as if those who use Twitter have not only to use it productively, but also must prove to other leftists that using it is not going to corrupt their souls. Non-leftists don't have to carry that baggage.
* * *
Belatedly, but heartfelt congratulations Doug Henwood! With appreciation for maintaining this excellent public forum. (Louis Proyect's listserv is another good asset, once people learn to discount Louis' effervescent temper.)