Or, as this post would seem to imply, is it just an artificial ecosystem made up of the vain, the docile, the needy, the under-resourced and those who’ve take bad advice?
Comments on the back of a tenner to the usual address.
Writers and communicators for hire
thewordmonger 
No, I have read and re-read it and I don’t know how you could conclude that I have said Twitter is “vain…………needy, etc. etc.” not no-where either in letter or spirit.
Hi Sarah – sorry if my interpretation of your post was not what you intended. I took it from this excerpt in particular:
“As the sessions concluded I took stock – had I learned anything? No. Had I contributed to anyone else learning anything? No.
It felt like we were all saying the same thing, speaking the social media speak. The digerati in full flow – agreeing with one another.
Some of the topics touched upon digital inclusion and the potential for political engagement through social media, but while we were talking, tweeting and pontificating, who was actually listening? What do the views of a bunch of always-on wired meeja professionals in London have to do with delivering news and information services to people working in tough but essential spheres such as the mental health sector, or living in areas where broadband access is still an aspiration not a reality?”
My definitions of (the majority of) Twitter users come from other experiences, rather than from your post. Experiences and research studies, to be fair. I’ve blogged about it before.
I am an old Luddite and I really don’t see the (commercial/business/marketing) value in Twitter – some of your comments simply backed up what I think. ‘Always-on wired meeja professionals.’ Hey – you said it.