Upon consideration, I realized that I actually find there to be two potential “core” meanings of Twitter, either of which one could refer as “Twitter’s thing”:
A) A social network where profiles are public by default, friend connections are one-way, and you can retweet the stuff others have posted.
B) A social network with a 140-character limit on the post length.
If you take B as the core, then A fits very well together with it. But if you take A as the core, then B can be seen as a limitation. When I said that G+ does Twitter better than Twitter does, I was thinking about A as the core. On the other hand, I do agree that the 140 character limit also has its upsides, so I’d like to see both G+ and Twitter co-existing.
I’d say G+ does Twitter better than Twitter does.
Would you unpack your sense of “better” for me? One salient difference is the 140-char limit—but I found that a feature of Twitter, not a limitation.
Upon consideration, I realized that I actually find there to be two potential “core” meanings of Twitter, either of which one could refer as “Twitter’s thing”:
A) A social network where profiles are public by default, friend connections are one-way, and you can retweet the stuff others have posted.
B) A social network with a 140-character limit on the post length.
If you take B as the core, then A fits very well together with it. But if you take A as the core, then B can be seen as a limitation. When I said that G+ does Twitter better than Twitter does, I was thinking about A as the core. On the other hand, I do agree that the 140 character limit also has its upsides, so I’d like to see both G+ and Twitter co-existing.