Listeria!

Dear Lord, I have to throw out the Halloween candy. I get to this point every year where I realize that if I eat candy every day for a couple weeks I get really, really crazy. I don't think I could ever give sugar up but I have got to stop the binging or I am going to end up on the bathroom floor cutting myself like a teenager. "Fun size" my ass. But let's leave my ass out of this.

Ignore this next bit if you are not on Twitter. And you just may want to ignore it even if you are on Twitter. I have been thinking a lot about the new "lists" feature that's just been rolled out. Most of the reaction has been positive. There's been some (legitimate) griping about elitism and a-listing, but mostly people think it's a cool new feature. Which it is. But I wonder if it's more than just a new feature. I think it could end up being a major game-changer. For one, It suddenly turns Twitter economics upside-down. Now you don't have to be smart, witty, thoughtful or connected to be an influencer. Now you can just be really good at compiling lists to become powerful on the network. If someone is able to be really great at curating lists they suddenly have currency on the network, because people could potentially follow their lists instead of individuals. This then messes with the "follower" number for people because if someone is on a list or lists I follow I don't need to follow them in my timeline anymore.  That could result in people getting fewer followers and thus less of what people now deem as the power indicator. So suddenly this new number, the "listed" number becomes very important. (Actually my favorite comment so far about the lists is from, not surprisingly, @CcSteff: "Loving the list feature. Really excited to have another number that measures my self-worth.") I have no doubt celebrities, who are so good at this game for obvious reasons, will pretty soon start coming up with clever ways to have people add them to their lists to up that number. Lastly, I can see some sticky intellectual property issues coming up. Let's say you compile a list that becomes followed like crazy. People are following the list because of the content that's in it but the lister could get "rich," first in just social media currency and then possibly in real currency depending on how Twitter ultimately starts monitizing content or if a list turns into some kind of media deal for the curator. Sort of like the brouhaha that surrounded Twitter Wit earlier this year. There was some passionate debate on those issues and some characterized @nick (Douglas) as making a buck off other people's lulz in an exploitative way while others thought it was totally kosher because all the tweeps who were quoted gave explicit permission. Lists raise a spectre of similar IP issues that could be a real headache. Something tells me there might be an updated TOS coming out pretty soon. But, this all might amount to nothing if the lists don't take off. Right now there is a flurry of activity but it seems like the subscribing to public lists is confusing to people and might not catch on in a big way. I haven't made any lists yet because I am feeling kind of funny about all this stuff, not to mention my usual fear of hurting someone's feelings that keeps me from participating in FollowFriday every week. But, I plan on making some because it's really nice feeling to be on people's lists so I'd like to spread that love as best I can. You know, after I finish my novel.

Just one more Milky Way. Then I stop. I swear.

Comments

[kara]

My head hurts now, thanks. Hmmm, maybe a snickers will help...

[braine]

I liked someone else's comment about lists: "I have two lists. Following and followers."

[Neil]

I agree. I think these lists are going to really change twitter, even if we don't see it yet. I am not fond of lists, but this seems to be the direction the web is going -- towards becoming more like old media. I don't think this will spread the influence around. I think those with influence will make lists that will consolidate power, a bit like Oprah's book club. The lists will become like the blogrolls that were once big in blogging. Whose list are people going to follow -- my "Mom Bloggers" list or Dooce's "Mom Bloggers" list? Which list will become the "official" list that the media will notice?

[Heather B.]

When the lists first came out I didn't understand it and now that I've had time to check out some lists I still don't really get it. I think it's just a nice way to group those that you follow. It make it more manageable or something. I have one list and in the middle of making that list I stopped because I got distracted. It's been like two weeks and I still haven't finished that list. For the record it's a list of people I know in real life. Which I don't think that anyone can really get pissy about because how can I add you if I've never met you?

I also understand what you are saying about 'social media currency' but I think that so many people have become way too caught up in who is following who, their rank, where they are or aren't linked to, etc. It's become a bit ridiculous. And I'm not on my high horse because I've never been upset about lists and links before but because I eventually stopped caring. So now I don't anymore.

So that is my two cents on the matter. I can see why people do care but I'm pretty 'eh' about the whole thing.

[LetterB]

Yes, the hierarchy thing is always going to be there once you start including (and thus excluding) people. (Someone, I think it was @GoNowGo, said, and I'm paraphrasing: Is "Why haven't you listed me" the new "Why don't you follow me back?" yet?) But I am more interested in how it shakes up the way people use Twitter. You could conceivably get an account and subscribe to lists, without following a single individual. Which is weird to me, but you'd get plenty of value. Anyway, I better be on your IRL list, betch.