Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Against live-tweeting at conferences

jasonlefkowitz.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#31

Post by wmf »

derefr wrote: post #5

Well, yes, if you are there for your own sake, live-tweeting the goings-on is taking away from the experience. But if you are there for your followers' sakes--that is, if you are a journalist--then live-tweeting is the whole point of attending: you are serving as a proxy, telling them what's going on so they can experience the session "live", vicariously, through you. Journalists have never really paid much attention…

I think that's just as harmful. The 24-second news cycle creates an unending stream of fake controversies, corrections, retractions, and flamewars stemming from the rush to publish. As a reader, I'd prefer if journalists took notes, thought about the entire presentation, perhaps asked for clarification when necessary, and then published.

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#33

Post by wmf »

betterth wrote: post #7
m311ton wrote: post #4

I've always thought that live tweeting during conferences was incredibly lame and obnoxious, both as a presenter and an attendee. Rarely do people add value with their live tweets. And when I do want to find something of value at a conference by looking at the tweets, I have to sort through all sorts of crap where people just repeat what the speaker said.

As someone who loves to see what is going on but is never within two thousand miles of where these conferences are held, I love the live tweeting and live blogging. I get that it may be an annoyance to those who attend, but to the thousands (millions?) who can't attend, it's how we follow as best we can.

What delay would you tolerate? One minute? One hour? One day?

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#34

Post by demewmew »

As one of the commenters on the OP mentioned, live-tweeting is often used as a means of note-taking, and much like the commenter in question, I find it's crucial if I want to stay engaged with both the presenter and the content. I could keep it to myself, but if it's contributing value for others by making it public (and it usually is), why not? I do have total empathy for the agitation it can cause a presenter, though, so I do my best to model attentive behavior anytime I'm not jotting down a note.

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#35

Post by bithive123 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #30
ScottWhigham wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why people are downvoting this - anyone care to chime in as to what he said that was downvote-worthy?

I assume it is being down voted because it is off topic. ...tweeting or surfing the web as though it were a slow day at the office (what the parent is talking about) is a very different thing from live-tweeting an event (what the article is talking about).

I don't see a substantial difference in tone between the article and my post. Instead of downvoting me, why not explain the difference between "tweeting" and "live-tweeting"? I don't see one there either; it seems like an attempt to avoid thinking critically about internet habits and I suspect the downvotes are more reflective of my comment hitting too close to home than it being off-topic.

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#36

Post by aidenn0 »

I don't see how live-tweeting is significantly different (from the speaker's point of view) with someone taking notes; either way they don't look up much and either way their attention is on making a record of what is being said.

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#37

Post by smacktoward »

personlurking wrote: post #23
nsmartt wrote: post #16

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think it's necessarily rude since you aren't (necessarily) detracting from the experience of the people around you. It may be rude to the speaker, but it's become common to the point that I'm not even sure about that. Also, I noticed the use of "between you and I." I really hate this. It's incorrect, and I see it everywhere. Can we put a stop to this? I know this is a bit nit…

Might as well also mention this "...and her message. And you’re hurting the presenter, since the message you’re sending to them." 'Her' then 'them'? I feel like whenever people put "her" when it's not defined, they are actually pausing or backtracking to purposefully place 'her' where they'd normally place 'his'. Much simpler would be 'the' or 'their', in this case. Relevant http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lex…

Hi, author of the post here. You're right, that's just a dumb mistake I should have caught in proofreading. I've edited to make it consistent.

Thanks!

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#38

Post by trentmb »

aidenn0 wrote: post #36

I don't see how live-tweeting is significantly different (from the speaker's point of view) with someone taking notes; either way they don't look up much and either way their attention is on making a record of what is being said.

Notes can be revised before they become public, which is useful if the twatter misunderstood something.

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#39

Post by jeremyarussell »

Aqua_Geek wrote: post #29
kittxkat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but feel that these people will someday look back and have great pictures of these events but no memory of them. Not necessarily. I am going to a lot of concerts (~3-4 per month), and I take pictures with my phone because of my horrible memory. If stumble upon the photo a few months later, it triggers most of my memories and experiences, but without this sort of "evidence" I'd be totally lost on the deta…

> And, after all, wasn't that kind of the original purpose for a photograph? To capture an awesome moment you want to memorize? Good point, but it wasn't until somewhat recently that the camera taking those photographs had a virtually endless supply of film. I think there's a HUGE difference between taking a couple of pictures to remember the event and literally spending the entire evening watching through your phone…

The difference your thinking of is called percentage of time used. For instance, I also liked taking pictures at a concert I went to, I didn't do it to brag though, in fact they never touched the internet. (Okay technically they were dropbox synced, but I digress.) It would seem to me that most everything can be done with reason and in moderation without it becoming bad.

Re: Against live-tweeting at conferences

#40

Post by kstenerud »

Am I the only one who doesn't see any problem with this at all?

I mean, it's not like attendees are talking into a phone, inconveniencing other people. Complaining that every attendee's attention is not permanently fixed upon you strikes me as particularly vain. What about taking notes on a laptop? What about scribbling into a notebook? You should be glad that someone's interested enough to repeat the things you're saying to others.

Backchannel tweeting to me sounds like an excellent solution to the whispered conversation. Now you don't need to be physically proximate to someone in order to discuss ideas raised during the presentation. Not only that, but you're not going to disturb other attendees doing it! Thanks to this tech, people can add richness to the presentation they are attending.

This leads into the future. What happens when we have implants that allow us to communicate without tapping on a device at all, but rather just by thinking? How are you going to even know who's fully fixated upon you, and not engaged in backchannel conversation? And would you still be offended?

Always remember: Presentations are not for you; they are for your audience.

Post reply on HN