Twitter Matters #7: Twitter Bot Auto-Debate

It has been a while since I have felt a desire or need to add to my Twitter Matters series, mostly because there are so many people writing about Twitter these days that you really need to pick your spots carefully to add any value to the conversation.

In this case, I feel that this story by Jolie O’Dell on Mashable detailing Nigel Leck’s use of a bot to intercept and reply to updates refuting climate change is an extension of the idea of Memetic Logo that I explored in this post about Frank Tentler’s Twishes project.

Like Frank, Nigel has established a memetic beacon that is establishing his position within the climate change debate and the networks of people involved in that debate.  Going further than Frank, Nigel has added some intelligence or at least basic logic to his auto-reply strategy and is augmenting his impact with a link into his content.

It would take careful execution for a commercial brand to consider a strategy like this.  I suspect that there could be some valuable application in crisis management.

I will find myself noodling about possible extrapolations of this.  Please help me out with a few thoughts in the comments below.

I have turned my evolving reflections about twitter into a series of posts.  Catch the other thoughts:

Why Twitter Matters #1: Follow me, Follow You on Twitter

Twitter Matters #2: Memetic Logos, the Case of Twishes

Why Twitter Matters #3: Escalopter

Why Twitter Matters #4: social capital discussion evolving

Comment, Kim Patrick Kobza, CEO, Neighborhood America: cognitive outliers, real time group cognition

Why Twitter Matters #5: Twitter and Social Capital

Why Twitter Matters #6: Twitter Love Song

UPDATE@Nov.4, 2008 – an overview of StockTwits from Stowe Boyd.

UPDATE@Dec.1, 2008 – Tim O’Reilly “Why I Love Twitter”

Towards the Memetics of Design

Excerpt from page 13 ..

Darwinian Design:The Memetic Evolution of Design Ideas
John Z. Langrish

“Towards the Memetics of Design …

Dawkins’s memes which, in this context, are design ideas that can be
replicated do not have to wait very long for replication to take place.
They speed up the old genetic form of Darwinian change, but the
evolution of design ideas is still Darwinian because ideas about what
to strive for are in competition for scarce resources to turn them into
manufactured realities. There are no basic principles telling us how
one group of designed objects is superseded by another. The process
essentially is unpredictable. There is no law of selection “to propel
things in the direction of progress.” Selection is blind because there is
no way of knowing what happens next. Nonetheless, we keep trying.
If we stop striving for improvement, we have stopped being human,
but we should not be surprised if our efforts sometimes fail. Once
this apparently gloomy view is absorbed, it can be put to work.”

Looking for Dr. John Langrish.