While I still have not joined twitter, the meeting I am at is being live twittered but both audience members and one of the organizers. Being curious, I've been watching the hashtag to get a better feel for how this works. So far it's been "meh".
One thing that did catch my eye, however, was the activity around one of the presentations in which the speaker tried a joke that fell fairly flat. While I am not familiar with most of the people here, I get the impression that the speaker was well known and some good natured jibes lit up the twitter feed. I am assuming that it was "all in good fun", but without knowing the players I can only guess based on the content.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. There's no question that these types pf conversation happen at meetings and likely that those giving the speaker a ribbing on twitter would do so in person at the next break, but I can't help but feel slightly unnerved about the fact that it is in an archived public forum this way. Maybe I'm being over-sensitive, but it seems that the opportunity for things to be taken the wrong way or snowball into something larger than the original intent as the person was giving their knee-jerk wittiest possible 140 character take on the proceedings, makes the medium even less appealing. Obviously it is up to the tweeter (twit?) to be conscious of misinterpretation, but I think there is ample evidence that many are incapable or uninterested in applying said filter.
I can see value in live-blogging a meeting and providing some interpretational value to the presentations as a useful exercise and I could even understand the usefulness of following the twitter stream for a conference one can not attend, but I still find myself uncomfortable with the immediacy of twitter and the lack of apparent digestion and context.
Perhaps I'm just taking the first steps down my inevitable path to grumpy old man. Now get offa my lawn!