<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Twitter is inventing trans-media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/20/twitter-is-inventing-trans-media/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/20/twitter-is-inventing-trans-media/</link>
	<description>This can all be made better. Ready? Begin.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:00:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: All a&#8217;Twitter &#171; In The Crowd</title>
		<link>http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/20/twitter-is-inventing-trans-media/comment-page-1/#comment-23372</link>
		<dc:creator>All a&#8217;Twitter &#171; In The Crowd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:36:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/20/twitter-is-inventing-trans-media/#comment-23372</guid>
		<description>[...] That said, the most significant difference has nothing to do with the technology. It&#8217;s the way that Twitter is actually used, which has more to do with who is using it and what they believe it&#8217;s for than with what it can do. I tried to describe this to friends at dinner the other night, and after a few minutes of my stuttering and throwing out random examples somebody said, &#8220;So it&#8217;s like LiveJournal for text.&#8221; That&#8217;s really the best explanation I&#8217;ve heard, although Twitter isn&#8217;t limited to SMS. It&#8217;s moblogging LJ-style for people (myself included) who probably would not otherwise blog things that inconsequential or personal or random. Check out the public timeline and you&#8217;ll see what I mean. It&#8217;s also compulsively addictive, in the same way so many social software services create a kind of positive feedback loop. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] That said, the most significant difference has nothing to do with the technology. It&#8217;s the way that Twitter is actually used, which has more to do with who is using it and what they believe it&#8217;s for than with what it can do. I tried to describe this to friends at dinner the other night, and after a few minutes of my stuttering and throwing out random examples somebody said, &#8220;So it&#8217;s like LiveJournal for text.&#8221; That&#8217;s really the best explanation I&#8217;ve heard, although Twitter isn&#8217;t limited to SMS. It&#8217;s moblogging LJ-style for people (myself included) who probably would not otherwise blog things that inconsequential or personal or random. Check out the public timeline and you&#8217;ll see what I mean. It&#8217;s also compulsively addictive, in the same way so many social software services create a kind of positive feedback loop. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blaine</title>
		<link>http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/20/twitter-is-inventing-trans-media/comment-page-1/#comment-22043</link>
		<dc:creator>Blaine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2006/10/20/twitter-is-inventing-trans-media/#comment-22043</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the great writeup, Chris. I think you&#039;ve nailed down what makes twitter interesting. Hopefully we&#039;ll be able to follow up and surpass expectations!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the great writeup, Chris. I think you&#8217;ve nailed down what makes twitter interesting. Hopefully we&#8217;ll be able to follow up and surpass expectations!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
