egafd.com

It is certainly less, yes.

*Simplicity and clarity can get a point across far better than reams of verbiage. In essence, why use 100 poorly chosen words when 10 thoughtful ones can say it better?*

But with Facebook you can post 10 words or 100, with Twitter you have no choice but to post the limited number of words. Surely giving someone no option but to submit limited text can hardly be an advantage, can it? With Facebook you could do it that short if you wanted, or longer if you desired - you have the choice.

The two are not comparable so why are you trying too?

You point out in your comment what Twitter can do, but those things can also be done on Facebook - and to a greater extent on there too. Someone can update Facebook with a picture and a message about how they are "standing at the top of Canary Wharf looking at amazing views across London" - and submit that, along with a photo, to Facebook or Twitter. The differnce is people using Twitter have no choice BUT to keep the text short, on Facebook you can keep it short or make it long.

I have sent messages on Twitter, in several parts before. I've marked them as "1.", "2.", "3.", etc - or "continues...", "more..." and so on. With an email or a Facebook message you don't have to because you can make it as long as you want and submit it as one piece. Because Twitter has become trendy and cool, people see all of the aspects of it as being right and positive. I've never followed trends, I always try and look at things objectively.

You use some interesting analogies, and I will use one here. If someone only requires 50p to buy a bar of chocolate then one could argue that 50p would be sufficient to have at their disposal - and they need no more than that. However, if someone has ?10.00 in their pocket, they also have 50 pence, and a lot more. They have the scope to do what they wanted to do, and do other things aswell if desired. They could just spend the 50 pence they have, or they could spend a lot more. To have 50p is to have 50p, to have ?10.00 is also to have 50p - and a lot more in addition in case you chose to utilitise that too.

Tell me, if someone invented new kind of phone, where you could only talk for 30 seconds, rather than talk to an unlimited extent, would that be something credible and something that could be seen as revolutionary and 'of the moment'? On the face of it ''no', but once the thing became regularly used and became part of our day-to-day life, people would (in an Emporers New Clothes kind of way) think the thing is really cool and exactly what society needed all along. Most people would - but not me.

The two are compatible, they involve submitting text and photos. One just does it to a greater extent than the other.

No they are not.

What's the differnce then? On Facebook you can submit text, have a discussion, and post photos. Exactly the same with Twitter. It's just that with Twitter, as I keep saying, you can do less of it.

Yes you can write less on twitter. Most aspects of Twitter is different from Face Book.

Why don't you list other things which make them different and make making my point easier.

Ok.

Facebook: write unlimited amounts of text.
submit photos and segregate them into numerous albums.
write unlimted 'info' about yourself for all to see.
send a personal message to person.

Twitter: write very limited amout of text.
submit photos that are bracketed into one miscellaneous 'album'.
re-tweet, so a message you got can be displayed for wider public to see.
Direct Messaging, the same as personal message on Facebook.

There has got to be more than that...