Legacy

It’s a nightmare to the studious and a procrastinator’s dream. It’s a creeper’s invitation and a stalker’s symphony. It’s a best friend for the attention deficit, lonely and obnoxious. It’s the megaphone of celebrities and athletes, vegan activists and victims of midlife crises. It’s even a favorite of Mike the Tiger. It’s Twitter: cyberspace’s social-networking soapbox for the delusional masses, vying for “followers” in 140 characters or less.

Even the University is keeping pace with Twitter’s popularity. From news to sports, the University’s “tweets” feature campus updates and facility information, such as the football team’s ranking or Middleton’s hours of operation.

Weeding through the spam, advertisements and drama-laced muck that comprises much of the Web site renders it more of a hassle than benefit. If you choose not to attend class, read broadcast e-mails, subscribe to the University’s emergency text message system, pick up The Daily Reveille or even remotely engage yourself in campus happenings, Twitter is another way to beat information into your head.

It’s reminiscent of putting a nail gun to your skull and plugging away.

Tweeting is simple. Users, or “tweeple,” build a page through micro blogging, much like a compilation of brief text messages sent via phone or the Internet. Posting entails virtually anything: You can learn what your favorite celebrity is eating for breakfast or what your legislator is watching on YouTube. You can pester friends with a frame-by-frame description of your day, and even “follow” the tweets of your choice.

We thrive on instant-gratification, but Twitter is an over-stimulating abuse of “staying in touch.” No one should be subjected to the endless stream of updates, whether from friend or foe. No one should voluntarily subscribe to such whining and blathering. Twitter is Facebook’s narcissistic twin, and recent research predicts Twitter’s numbers will reach 18 million users by the end of the year.

Twitter is a modern aristocracy. Power rests in the hands of the marketing-savvy. They dictate what information is worthwhile, and we are blindly subscribing to their agendas. I can understand why the University would branch out to students who depend on tweets to stay informed (I’m sure these same people consult Wikipedia for research papers), but my beef is with what Twitter has become.

We consider ourselves to be a Flagship University. Instead of focusing on plunging grade point averages and 6-year graduation plans, University officials have entrenched themselves in what their next tweet will state. We have a scapegoat for all those wasted hours, superficial social lives and defunct IQs.

Sayonara, top-tier ranking.

The Harvard Business Review reported that 10 percent of Twitter users create 90 percent of the total tweets. Instead of fostering widespread user communication, Twitter distinguishes itself as a publishing outlet for cyber vomit. The report additionally found the median number of lifetime tweets per user to be only one. Half of users tweet less than once every 74 days.

Let’s cut ourselves off now.

Carolyn Garrity, a PhD student from LSU’s marketing department, believes that social media sites like Twitter are “a force in marketing” and shouldn’t be completely dispelled. Although “no expert in social media,” Garrity doesn’t believe Twitter is always an effective tool for organizations. Pages must be maintained and expectations must be realistic, she says.

Perhaps there’s a solution to this madness. Twitter can spare us some agony and screen potential users. We can knock off the self-indulgent ranks of teenyboppers and semi-socialites alike with a single click. It’s simple, really. Twitter can join the ranks of cyber-stalkers and follow the postings of potential users on Facebook, monitoring pictures and texts. If they have no social value, then tweeting should be forbidden.

Let the songbirds keep their tweets. Keep the crows from dribbling more waste on the Web. So please, do society a favor, keep your hands and tweets to yourself.