Filed under: 1 | Tags: broadcast, impersonations, MLC, online advertising, twitter
Yes, I should be revising or sleeping, but I’m curious about a couple of things…
- How does Twitter make money? DOES it make money?
- Can you sue for online impersonation, say, the kevinrudd account on Twitter (not kevinruddpm)
- I saw an ad just before about an interactive feature which is meant to be on the MLC website. Something about joining their panel of experts for discussing…stuff. Um. Want to know more about this one!
A lot of people are talking about politicians on Twitter and whether they should be using it to just broadcast or actually interact and address issues that come up. Now one of my favourite clubs has jumped on the bandwagon and I’m wondering where they should draw the line…
I think there are a few possible levels of involvement on Twitter, from lowest to highest:
- Broadcast – you just write your own updates
- Listen – you write your own updates and follow others passively
- Respond – you write updates and also reply to @ twitters
- Interact – you write, respond and create @ responses to others’ tweets
- Engage – you write to provoke responses and actively interact, creating…conversation.
As a politician you don’t really have time to engage. In fact, if you’re engaging all the time then I’d start wondering if you’re really doing anything with my taxes at all.
Most people are saying that politicians can acceptably draw the line at Responding.
However, the club that’s just joined Twitter currently looks like it’s just stopping at Broadcasting.
Is that okay? Can they just stop at giving us information? How far can they go towards engaging?
[Edit: Just found the Darth Vader Twitter – hilarious enough to get away with Broadcast any day.]
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
the grass is greener on the internet 