Andre

If tweets, those 140 character messages sent on the Twitter service, are in fact nothing more than status updates and we personify objects, events and actions, then anything measurable can tweet.

The question everyone answers with their tweets is "What are you doing?"
The answer to that should be another counter-question: "Do we care to read?"

Even a simple tree could tweet about what it sees all day, how it interacts with insects, animals and the wind, how it grows, sheds leaves.. A private tweet to me by my laundry machine might still be useful to me at least but does the world need to know? Isn't it enough already when I tell it to all in my own tweet stream?

Fictional accounts like @DarthVader are fun to read, and so are real, human accounts like @_Syma_. Both can't tweet on their own and thus rely on real people who write their stories. However, this is only so long fun as it stays within the account's personality.

Using Twitter as a micro-blog, the daily life of a tree indeed could turn into a beautiful story when carefully written - with a professional level of children books or poetry in mind. Otherwise it would turn into a dead branch of the twitterverse. Why not let an atom whine about its breakup?

Besides the usual spam that today affects every web service that accepts any form of input and account creation, the most annoying form of tweeting is its abuse as an instant messenger. Twitter supports tweet replies which is a great tool to comment or answer someone's question. However, it terribly fails when entire accounts are consisting of nothing more than replies. This might still be useful to that particular account holder for a specific purpose but it is a turn-off for those seeking more content value.

This is in particular annoying when such accounts follow one's own account and expect a follow-back. Probably the biggest misunderstanding of anything Twitter is the concept of following, where accounts can follow each other to receive updates of the others' latest tweets.

The common sense interpretaion of the follower feature should be that people can follow (about the same as "sign up for") others because they are interested in the content of the one they follow. Unfortunately, counters (numbers viewable by the public) have a hypnotic influence on most and thus the race to get the highest count of followers was on the moment the feature was introduced. A couple of accounts now have over a million followers, led by the public battle between Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) and CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk).

If the number of followers cannot be taken as yardstick to the importance of a certain account, then maybe re-tweets (rt) might do so. As the name suggests, re-tweeting refers to sending again someone else's tweet. This could be a simple copy led by a "rt" note and the original author's Twitter account name, or also joined by an own comment. Re-tweets are usually shortened in writing style or even content to fit within the 140 character limit of tweets but still carry the same message.

If someone - no matter famous or totally unknown - tweets something of great value or importance, it will be picked up by others - not necessarily followers - and re-tweeted. Gaining momentum, this message begins to appear on trend-spotting radars and can break news worldwide within minute, long before any conventional news media picks it up through traditional channels. Even with no WiFi or other Internet connection available, thanks to its SMS compatibility, Twitter users can send tweets from their mobile phone from wherever they are either next or inside the happening.

Twitter might well be on track to create a new communication and expression medium, something like the telephone and TV combined: simultaneously broadcasting and receiving anything from anywhere.

Twitter just might be the ultimate tool to give a voice to everything known to mankind.