Google/Brightcove Rumor Shows The Power Of Twitter, Which Is A Bad Thing

Mark Glaser's Tweet from earlier today about Google being in talks to acquire Brightcove made its way around the web in record time thanks to Twitter. While some might say that shows the power of Twitter, which it does, that's not a good thing. Within two hours of the Tweet, more than a dozen major websites and blogs were talking about the report, all based on a 102 character sentence.

While I'm not taking aim at Mark, I don't know who his source was or what was discussed, I think this is a great example of where Twitter is dangerous. If this kind of news first came out on a blog, people would expect some analysis of the story, would expect to read the authors take on what it means and the blog would give the author enough room to give their take on the news. But with Twitter, how much can someone really explain something in 140 characters? As Mark pointed out in a follow-up Tweet, he never said Google "acquired" Brightcove, he said his source told him they were in discussions. Something that probably would have come across a lot stronger if it was a blog post, as opposed to a one sentence comment on Twitter. That said, he should not be so surprised with the amount of coverage his Tweet got as Google and Brightcove are two companies that are well respected powerhouses in their individual industries.

But the bottom line here is that Twitter is a dangerous outlet to use for reporting news that may or may not be true. Blogs provide a lot better platform for being able to give your take on something and personally, I think too many people are becoming way too comfortable with Twitter and using it thinking it replaces a blog post. You can't explain anything on Twitter, which is why any Tweet that actually needs to talk about something useful, provides a link to it on a blog or website.

For more reasons why I'm not a fan of Twitter, see my post from last month, Twitter's Down Again, I Wish It Would Stay Down For Good.

Comments

[Streamtweet]

Dan, You can’t blame twitter for people publishing miss information on false news. If you had a trusted source that told you the information was false- why didn’t you confirm with them prior to blogging the information? Your blog only helped reinforce this false information. Don’t blame the tools for users bad judgment.

[Dan Rayburn]

@ Streamtweet: Of course I can. Twitter has made it way to easy for people to say something without having to feel the need to provide more details and analysis on what that news means for the industry. If that was done in this case, many people would not have taken the news with such excitement if they read analysis that explained while there might be a rumor, it does not make a lot of sense from a real-world standpoint.

The information I blogged was not that the info was accurate, I simply took the time to think about what a potential merger would mean, why it didn't make sense to me and how it would impact content owners. Something others should have done if they wanted to run with a post about a "rumor".

[Tom Streeter]

That's pretty much why I don't believe any tweet purporting to report something unless it contains a URL. But that's not to say I haven't been tipped off about big (real) stories via Twitter. It's just another medium.

[dragos]

You're blaming the technology for the way people use it and take it.

FWIW, blogs were in the exact same position in 2003 by being blamed for providing "un-documented" stories. Twitter, or the micro-blogging - to be fair, will be in the same position as blogs are today 3-5 years from now on.

[Dan Rayburn]

No, I'm blaming the technology for the physical limitation is has that keeps anyone from being able to explain anything in detail since you have only 140 characters. There is a physical limitation with Twitter service that blogs do not have.

[Streamtweet]

Dragos- You are correct.
@Dan- If the information is fake- 140 characters or 1,400 characters won't matter.