"If Twitter were a person, it would be an emotionally unstable person. It would be that person we avoid at parties and whose calls we don't pick up. It would be the person whose willingness to confide in us at first seems intriguing and flattering but eventually makes us feel kind of gross because the friendship is unearned and the confidence is unjustified. The human incarnation of Twitter, in other words, is the person we all feel sorry for, the person we suspect might be a bit mentally ill, the tragic oversharer."
I'm a Twitter user, but I found her column humorous - criticisms and all. She's spot on in her description of how many people use the medium (e.g., to update the world on mundane moments in their days, like "I'm heading to the kitchen to make a sandwich").
But here's the thing: who cares what people tweet? If you find it boring and mundane, then don't follow it. I think most of the critics are harping on the wrong thing - blaming the content that is transmitted via the channel on the channel itself.
Here's what I mean: think back (if you can) to the early days of radio, or the telephone, or the home computer. When these new technologies came onto the scene, very few people had access, nor did they truly recognize the long-term value that the technology could provide. Take the first phone call: Alexander Graham Bell said to his assistant, Thomas Watson, "Mr. Watson - come here - I want to see you." Pretty boring, right? Not enticing enough to make you want to follow his feed?
But fast forward 133 years, and no one would debate the value of the telephone.
I'm not saying that Twitter is as revolutionary as the phone call, but I am saying don't confuse the medium with the message. And don't be so quick to judge something that's still in its infancy. There are numerous individuals and companies that find value - and enjoyment - from Twitter. If you're not one of them, then simply go elsewhere.