If it were up to me — and many other people who love using Twitter to find ideas — Twitter lists would have been a much better product.
Better than hashtags, Twitter lists are a simple way to signal interest and focus. The image above in just a small snapshot of the lists other people put me on. List inclusion depends on the topics and themes you write about and the content you share. I use lists to group topics, industries, and interests to accelerate my research.
When Twitter lists first came out, I described them as a new mainstream media-type content channel. And maybe media companies have missed the boat on what interests readers. Just like many public relations pitches, it's more about what ticks than what clicks.
If you look at the lists from CNN, for example, initially, CNN's most followed list was anchors and reporters. They since switched to some of the topics they track. Following people you're not interested in building a relationship with creates noise. Common sense would dictate regular citizens follow stories, and not the people who write them.
As I revisit those mainstream media lists, I notice how they continue to be mostly about themselves, with a few weak attempts at building something useful for followers beyond their own publication. Things changed little from November 2009 to July 2010, when I did my first review.
At the time, the Huffington Post seems pretty well on top of the content it covered with its lists. However, when it moved to a new account, it didn't take lists with it. Other news media companies that use lists have modified their initial focus and interests.
Among them:
- CNN — was not as comprehensive as I would have thought, but they had many Twitter accounts. Now they track politics, international, conventions, world cup, and a few other topics that seem a bit old news. News is their most-followed list.
- NBC news — was a bit meager, with only two lists. They have more now, but seem to track mostly their own staff and businesses. The few topics are a bit old. News is their most followed, not surprisingly.
- Wall Street Journal — validated its paid premium content brand. Their current lists, also likely not publicized as much, seem old. There are a couple of topics like China, heard on the street, politics, and world news. WSJ accounts is the most followed.
- The Economist — had plenty of room for content with international flavor. They now seem to track only their own people.
- Time magazine — made a good start and an opportunity to truly provide a curated media experience. But now it just tracks staff and verticals.
- BBC — began with just BBC channels. It added their own people, radio, TV, regional channels, and their own products.
- npr news — was a bit broader than just npr people. Those lists are gone and now they have zero.
- Newsweek — initially not impressive given the magnitude of their follower count. They seem to have made a bit of an effort in 2018, then stopped there.
- USA Today — used lists to group resources of important conversations that were happening then. They've kept the same strategic focus on tracking topics of general interest like coronavirus and added lists for their own brands, staff, and teams.
- The Washington Post — had one list. In addition to lists for their own reporters and people and brands, they have lists on coronavirus, video, and world news staff. Post politics is the most followed list.
- The LA Times — provided excellent example of making useful lists and following user lists, the highest in 2010. While they added in the same vein since then, they also seem not to publicize their lists. Staffer lists are their most followed.
- Financial Times — left plenty of room for a more creative use of financial content curation. They now seem to have a strong following on most of their lists of staffers and feeds.
- The San Francisco Chronicle — demonstrated what was important to readers. They still do, but don't seem to publicize, given the low follower count.
- Slate — focused on its own staff. While they likely added several lists since 2010, their followers haven't noticed.
- Wired — was about the magazine and staff. Just one list today. With such a high follower count, Wired has not found a use for lists.
- Fast Company — while initially not impressive, they've added to staff lists lists of most innovative companies and creative people, as well as world-changing ideas.
- Inc. magazine — seemed to be about itself. And now it's at zero lists.
- Atlantic Online — made good use of thematic content. When it shifted account to The Atlantic, they started tracking editorial staff and fellows.
- Mashable — not surprisingly, they had a nice variety, which they kept up. You can tell this is a digital native publication that uses social media to track topics and keep on eye on readers' interests.
- TechCrunch — listed what was hot. Their writers list is the most followed. Other lists, among the few overall, are a bit old and overlooked.
- Ars Technica — had one and added just four, which don't seem to have gained any traction.
When I took a look at my own lists in 2010, what I noticed is that those with the greater follower count were in the most altruistic and more clearly content-driven categories — #kaizenblog, the then weekly chat about kaizen in business strategy, community builders, and community evangelists.
I've added to those on topics list research, CX, climate focus, arts, philanthropy, and job market. The most followed list I have is that of CEOs. Mashable wrote about it being the most complete, and that's how people initially found it by the hundreds. The list I use the most is learning with the pros.
If Twitter were less people- or account-centric and more topic- or theme-centric, there would be greater opportunity to crowd-source beyond iReports to the nature of news itself. Then it could become a destination for the connection of topics and the stories that inform them.
The New York Times and the Washington Post at some point published more articles and blog posts about content and news that interested people. The Atlantic has been doing superb reporting on issues and questions throughout the pandemic: on work, health, technology, and what we read and discuss as a society.
But why isn't Twitter yet organized to track topical content? Hashtags were an idea from developer Chris Messina. And now trending topics are (mostly) gossip and some news stories. Could this be a reason why the promise of social media turned into an extensions of the old ways of working?
Is this unimaginative way why
if you want to further your knowledge and learning,
the best places are curated platforms?
I'm still experimenting with Twitter lists and topical content. Are you? Did you ever find lists useful?
I'm curious, because I find them supremely useful to cut through the noise. But perhaps lists have gone the way LinkedIn Groups have, given how social media business shifted to advertising and paid business models. Both sacrificed actual community in favor of activity.
Activity is not the same as results. In this case, we've already seen how money for the social media company has eroded intellectual and social capital on social media. Trading what is more valuable (and a renewable source of energy) for something that is less so is a Faustian bargain, if I ever saw one.
All social media companies have issues about public discourse. Twitter's case is about bots and trolls, and gaming trending topics. In a recent letter, I talked about the advice Twitter has not taken from the people most passionate about the social network over the years.
The media part is not all there is to social media. It didn't matter as much during the years of experimentation. But then social media became too big and important to public discourse. Have we redefined “social” to mean something else than everyone who wants to be part of it?
You would be a better owner of Twitter than Elon Musk says Wired:
Despite all the experiments we have been following since we first challenged Twitter’s structure in 2016, we can’t pretend that the path to platform democracy is easy or clear. Even the likes of Uber and Airbnb asked to share stock with their most loyal users, and existing US law offered no easy way to do it.
It's very tempting to focus only on the money angle of governance and infrastructure. Focus and interests can generate and are a source of power. But as a society, we may have forgotten the connection between culture and energy.
Lists was a product with excellent potential. The lack of development is one small example of how the interests of few end up dictating what's possible for many.
Rather than merely flavoring and retweeting, what if they could suggest and vote on the policies that affected their experience online?
What if?
.
.
.
.
P.S. Twitter just announced that it agreed to Elon Musk's offer for $54.20 per share in cash (approx. $44 billion.)