David Carr, a reporter for the New York Times, argues why twitter will endure compared to other social networking sites. He talks about his skepticism at first and now his addiction to it. He feels that many social networking sites come and go, reminding the reader of Myspace, but debates that twitter is here to stay. He gets all his news first from Twitter and enjoys the 140 character so people are precise and get to the point. He touches points on the hash tags, where one can track a specific conversation topic, stating that, "hash tags allow you to go deep into interests and obsession."
With myself being new to Twitter, I'm not sure if I have accessed it as much as it is intended for. I don't think that Twitter can really be compared to Facebook because I believe they are social networking sites set up for different purposes. Facebook is set up for communicating with your friends, keeping up to date with their lives, and reuniting with lost friends. I don't see that anyone is out there using Facebook to get the latest news. This is where Twitter comes in. It seems to be a social networking site of news updates, not status updates.
With my Twitter experience so far, I feel that it is far too much information to sort through with the time I have. The few people I am following are tweeting several times a day, if not every hour. Unless I am willing to put forth the time of checking Twitter every hour, I don't see how this would be beneficial to me. I would not be able to read through a days worth of tweets if I was following more people. I can see how this would be beneficial to journalists and reporters since this is what their life revolves around, but for myself, I feel that it is a social gossiping site.