Erini Andriopoulos
SMC229
Taking Reading on a 180 with 140: The Relationship Between the Reader and the Tweeter
Microblogging is a new form of communication where users describe their current statuses in short posts, distributed by instant messages, cell phones, and the internet (Akshay, Song, Finin and Tseng, 5). Twitter is an online social networking site that has experienced major growth and popularity since 2009 for it’s ability to instantaneously provide status updates for individuals that are sent to all of their Twitter followers. Tweets can be seen as temporarily authentic microscopic instantiations of public mood and private state (Bollen, Pepe, and Mao, 15). Twitter followers can be seen as “readers,” who receive the same status updates at the same time (if they’re online). Individuals include “hashtags,” aggregating interests and current events together, creating an online community of discussion (Bruns, 7).
Studies have shown that with high profile events such as sports games, award shows, political stories, and natural disasters, there is a “spike” in the volume of Tweets indicating an important event (Nichols, Mahud, and Drews, 3). They provide insight for what is happening in the real world in real time (Nichols, Mahud and Drews, 6). “Real life” institutions such as television networks, sports newscasters, even classrooms have brought their mini communities to the Twitter world. Television award shows such as the Oscars will be encouraged to “tweet your vote” or “tweet who is best dressed” and include “#oscarsbestdressed” for example to collect all Tweets together and create a discussion. When a high profile event occurs (or is occurring) individuals feel the need to comment, and with Twitter, they are able to do so without having anyone else in the room. The instantaneous communication that goes with Twitter brings people together in excitement and being caught up in the ‘hype’ (Corbeil, E and J, 15).
Studies show that the interaction between the Twitter user and their followers (or readers) are heightened by the need to create and form relationships with others (Masullo Chen, 756). Sociologists and psychologists such as Murray and Maslow have defined needs as forces that push people into a certain direction to gratify those needs (Huberman, Romero, Wu, 4). Twitter is one social media network that people choose to use to meet those needs as a way of process gratification (Masullo Chen, 755). Process gratification refers to the process of meeting gains through the experience of using media, in this case, Twitter. There are three broad groups of Twitter users outlined in, “A Few Chirps About Twitter.” The first group of users have a much larger number of followers than they are following themselves because they are “broadcasters” of tweets. The second group of users are called “acquaintances” who show reciprocity in their social relationships (tweeting back with the @replies). The third group are called “miscreants” or “evangelists” who follow a much larger number of people they follow (Gill, Krishnamurthy, and Arlitt, 15). The more frequent an individual is on Twitter, their frequency of tweeting, the number of @replies, and Retweets create a “connection” with other users (Masullo Chen, 756) and a “ritualized social relationship” (Huberman, Romero, Wu,4). Users with more followers are more likely to post more often, as they are attracted to the amount of response they receive (ibid). With Twitter and other social networking platforms, reading a tweet is no longer just to ‘read’ it, but gives the option to do so much more (Johnson). There is a notion that Twitter therefore develops a “virtual” or “imagined” community, where there is a development of a common language, the use of hashtags, retweets, forwarded messages, and new texts such as “Twitterspeak” (Gruzd, Wellman, Takhteyey, 1299).
When interacting through Tweets, @replies, and hashtags, Tweeters focus their tweets around an “imagined audience” or their readers. Studies show that we present ourselves differently depending on who we’re talking to, the social contexts we are in or the norms that are expected in the situation (Marwick, 117).
Twitter has changed the simple reader/author perspective in a number of ways. The Tweeter (author) and the follower (reader) relationship is now expanded to giving the reader the opportunity to reply back to the author. In 140 characters, individuals are able to share daily experiences, opinions, report live news stories, informing their followers of their most up to date news instantly. Readers on Twitter are given a choice of who to follow, who to reply to, who to Retweet, and those who choose to follow the same groups of people overall form a “virtual community.”
Works Cited
Bollen, Johan, Alberto Pepe, and Huina Mao. “Modeling Public Mood and Emotion: Twitter Sentiment and Socio Economic Phenomena.” (2009). Mendeley, 2009. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.
Bruns, Axel. Ad Hoc Innovation by Users of Social Networks: The Case of Twitter. Rep. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. Queensland University of Technology, 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://apo.org.au/node/26307>.
Corbeil, Joseph R., and Maria E. Corbeil. “The Birth of a Social Networking Phenomenon.” Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education 1 (2011): 13-32. Emerald Group. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. <http://
www.emeraldinsight.com/books.htm?chapterid=1906602&show=pdf>.
Gill, Phillipa, Balachander Krishnamurthy, and Martin Arlitt. “A Few Chirps About Twitter.” ACM Press (2008): 1-19. Print.
Huberman, Bernardo, Daniel Romero, and Fang Wu. “Social Networks That Matter: Twitter under the Microscope.” First Monday 14.1 (2008): 1-9. Mendeley. Web. 1 Jan. 2012.
Java, Akshay, Xiadon Song, Tim Finin, and Belle Tseng. “Why We Twitter: Understanding Microblogging Usage and Communities.” Procedings of the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop 2007 (2007). UMBC Ebiquity. University of Maryland, Baltimore County, 12 Apr. 2007. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.
Johnson, Steven. “How Twitter Will Change The Way We Live.” Time Magazine. 5 Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902818,00.html>.
Masullo Chen, Gina. “Tweet This: A Uses and Gratifications Perspective on How Active Twitter Use Gratifies a Need to Connect with Others.” Computers In Human Behavior 27.2 (2011): 755-62. Mendeley. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.
Marwick, A. E., and D. Boyd. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society 13.1 (2011): 114-33. University of Toronto. Feb. 2011. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.
<http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/22/1461444810365313>.
Nichols, Jeffrey, Jalal Mahmud, and Clemens Drews. “Summarizing Sporting Events Using Twitter.” IBM Research Group (2012): 1-10. Print.
O’Reilly, Tim, and Sarah Milstein. The Twitter Book. Beijing: O’Reilly, 2009. Print.
Boyd, Danah M., and Ellison, Nicole B., “Social Network Sites: Definition, history and scholarship.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 13.1 (2007)
KONY 2012. Dir. Jason Russell. YouTube. InvisibleChildrenInc, 5 Mar. 2012. Web. 6 Mar. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch? feature=player_embedded&v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc#!>.
Gauntlett, David. Making Is Connecting. Chichester: Polity, 2011. Print.
Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: How Change Happens When People Come Together. London: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Grimes, Sara. “Week 1: Introduction to the Course: Friends, Likes, and Tweeps Mediating the Social” SMC300. Alumni Hall Room 100, Toronto. 12 Jan. 2012. Lecture.
LaFlamme, Lisa. “Social Media Campaign Turns Notorious Warlord into Household Name.” CTV National News. 7 Mar. 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ctv.ca/ CTVNews/NationalNews/20120307/joseph-kony-campaign-lisa- laflamme-blog-120307/>.