<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;explanations&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:04:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Verizon Wireless Blocks 4chan; You Would Think It Would Remember What Happened When AT&amp;T Did That</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/1100248086.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/1100248086.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last summer, due to a DDOS attack emanating from IP addresses connected to 4chan, AT&T <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1817155667.shtml">temporarily blocked access</a> to 4chan... without giving a full explanation for why.  If you know 4chan, you know why this is a bad idea.  It took very little time for the 4chan community to retaliate (and, as you know, no one "retaliates" like 4chan "retaliates"), and only a few days later, when AT&T explained what happened, did 4chan back off.  So, now comes the news this weekend that <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/verizon_blocks_4chan.php" target="_blank">Verizon Wireless is blocking 4chan</a> (this is just Verizon Wireless, not Verizon), and the company seems to be making the same mistake.  No clear explanation of why.  I'm sure there's a reason that Verizon Wireless can give, but not explaining that immediately seems like a huge mistake. <b>Update</b>: Not surprising, but looks like the <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10449167-245.html" target="_blank">same reasoning as AT&T's temporary block</a> last year.  Still doesn't explain why the company wasn't upfront in explaining it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/1100248086.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/1100248086.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100208/1100248086.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-wise</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100208/1100248086</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 19:33:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Value Of Twitter As Compared To Google</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1437004901.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1437004901.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I recognize that it's becoming fashionable among many to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090514/1808394887.shtml">bash Twitter</a>, but for those who have learned how to use Twitter well (as opposed to many who use it poorly), the value of it is quite impressive.  I now spend a lot more time using Twitter to find news than I do my feed reader -- and that's amazing to me.  However, I think Mark Cuban actually has made the strongest point, noting that <a href="http://blogmaverick.com/2009/05/15/how-twitter-and-facebook-now-compete-with-google/" target="_new">in many ways, Twitter is becoming more useful than Google</a>.  This isn't to say that Twitter is "killing" Google (x killing y stories are lame), but that many people are finding information via Twitter now, where they used to find it via Google.
<br /><br />
Cuban gives an example of trying to buy a car, where there may be a lot of value in being able to message a guru on the type of car he wants to buy via Twitter (or, better yet, finding a few of them).  I know I've found Twitter to be useful in this manner.  A few months ago, I was looking for a new backpack for my computer -- and I had very specific requirements (such as the ability to carry both a laptop and a netbook at times comfortably).  It was quite difficult to come up with a Google query that made sense for such a thing, but I could ask it easily in 140 characters and plenty of people could easily understand it, and then provide thoughts and recommendations.  It comes back to two points:
<ul>
<li>Having real humans respond to a query works well for more specific queries that simply aren't well automated.
</li><li>Perhaps much more importantly, real people can better offer <i>recommendations</i> or <i>explanations</i> than an automated query on Google, which simply seeks to find <i>data</i> or <i>answers</i>.
</li></ul>
Basically, what Twitter is enabling is an entirely different form of information gathering online: via conversation, rather than via data dump.  Each has it's place, but the reason many of us find Twitter so compelling is that it's opening up tremendous new possibilities to enable useful information flow that simply wasn't possible before.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1437004901.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1437004901.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090515/1437004901.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-growing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090515/1437004901</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>