As a matter of fact, the thing is, well, …tweets are staggeringly shallow. Not the tweeters, as you point out — the tweets. Kind of like my kids’ chat messages (I had a peek once or twice): “Ha ha!” “Ha ha ha!” “You said it!” “Ha!” On and on for a staggeringly shallow infinity.
Okay, not that bad, but unintelligible, uncontexted, and kind of like being hampered with Morse code. A step backwards in communication, surely. Either that, or I am just terminally verbose. In love with the languid sound of intelligible language.
I once hastened to “follow” a very important conference via Twitter. It was astounding — couldn’t understand a thing. “Prof. Puffery just made the same point!” What point? “His next slide gave the full outline.” Which of course I can’t see. “Dr. Doolittle giving a good rebuttal.” Which is…? Frankly, it was ridiculous.
In short, an excellent tool for preventing communication.
What you must remember with Twitter is that, although known as microblogging, it’s not a drop-in replacement for blogging. As the previous commenter mentioned, text messages are shallow, and out of context they are completely unintelligible. But the key is that it gives a window on the interests of the writer. So you follow the tweets to be pointed to things, and you also follow the full blogs and conference talks (which are signposted through Twitter no doubt!), and that’s where you get your depth from. You could almost see it as a less shallow version of RSS!