Lists vs Groups

Interesting move by Twitter. There is potential in the recent 'list' feature. Unlike the 'groups' on Facebook, LinkedIn, ... list members do not apply for membership, they are simply picked by the list creator. There is nothing official about the list (as opposed to LinkedIn especially). Although the social factor is not eliminated from relevance production, it is a lot less present. It is a lot more about content than people, in this sense. The lists are less about identifying a tweeter than about organizing tweets. Many have noted that the number of lists functions as a popularity index. But this popularity could contain a lot of relevance-based, weakly-personal popularity. Lists are inherently theme-oriented, as opposed to person-oriented. Groups on the other hand are more person- and community- oriented. But again Twitter functions differently here, via hashtag-coordination.

These different design strategies are fascinating. What Twitter just did with lists reminds me of the 'interests' feature on Livejournal (see here for a brilliant analysis by C. Shirky). It is not necessary to have built-in heterogeneity-reduction, because the system will self-organize. It will be interesting to observe and participate in list diffusion on Twitter.

I am also liking what Delicious did with tags. Very simple and flexible solution.