#c3t The Command & Control of Twitter:
On a Socially Constructed Twitter & Applications of the Philosophy of Data

Brian Ballsun-Stanton
School of History and Philosophy
The University of New South Wales
Sydney, Australia
brian@ballsun.com
Kate Carruthers
Headshift Australasia Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia
katec@computer.org


Abstract—This paper explores the transformation of Twitter
from the traditional developer based command and control into
something strangely democratic: a social (re)construction of
utility, a twisting of this once unique service to serve the needs
and desires, ever evolving, of its users. We explore changes in the
social constructions of Twitter and use recent research in the
Philosophy of Data to suggest potential explanations.
Keywords-Twitter; Social Construction; Philosophy of Data;
#c3t
I. COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATION OF
TWITTER (#C3T)
To command is the exercise of authority; to control is to
shape the correct responses of those commanded [1]. These
military concepts have very little to do with software design.
They provide, however, a useful metaphor for exploring the
ideas of the democratization and social construction of media.
The locus of #c3t in software traditionally lies with the
software developers: they assign development goals as mission
objectives, command software to be written to fulfill that
mission, control the use and release of those computing
resources, and communicate the potential mission to
customers. Customers then use the software to accomplish the
predefined mission. Versatile software can be configured for
different, related, missions. This metaphor is the normal way of
life [2].
Twitter is an example of an increasing democratization of
media that the Internet enables. This shift in control should not
be considered a phenomenon of Twitter alone, nor should it be
generalized to any Internet based service. Facebook certainly
demonstrates the viability of traditional developer C3
structures: they control the computers, the communications,
and they alone command the missions of their platform [3].
Initially, the creators of Twitter thought they had created a
micro-blogging platform [4]. Their initial offering was that
users could post 140 character short statements on the Internet.
However, this early concept was overturned by the actual usage
of the platform by its early users. The users of the technology
co-opted Twitter and its resources against the makers’ original
stated intent. Here we see an example of appropriation of
media by users where the shift was small, fast, and out of the
creator's control: a guerrilla democratization of command.
Much of Twitter’s subsequent growth and evolution as a
platform has been in response to user demands and usages
rather than from following the creators’ original plan [5]. One
of the more striking usages is in appearance. Twitter users are
able to nominate an avatar to represent them on the site and to
share a 160 character biography in their profile together with a
link to another site. Many users change their avatar picture
regularly to reflect changes in their personal appearance or to
signify support for various causes. Users also customize their
Twitter homepage background using various third-party tools.
This personalization of their presence on Twitter enables users
to construct personal narratives that they communicate by
means of these customizations.
This customization, however, is radically different from
that offered by Facebook: the difference is in the direction of
control. Facebook offers a “like” button, allowing users to
express their “likes” (however the term is opaquely
operationalized by Facebook) on their profile, without
changing the layout or fundamental message provided. The
locus of c3 resides solely with the developers. The opposite is
true in Twitter. With Twitter’s API, clients, and many alternate
and communally decided uses, c3 resides with the users: they
command the mission, control the objectives, decide on their
own communicative protocols (#tags and @replies), and own
the computing machinery to a much larger degree than
Facebook, because of APIs and local clients.
For example, users change their Twitter homepage
background and avatars to show their affiliation to particular
groups, for example (as of 2 July 2010) a user called
@gerdschenkel shows his affiliation with the German soccer
team in the World Cup 2010, his work with a company called
UBank, shares some pictures of Cambodia and Laos, and
provides a link to an external website called Pearltrees.
Through this customization, Gerd has been able to share some
key narrative about his life and passions. This self-directed
customization enables anyone who is thinking of following
Gerd to have some idea about his interests and frames his
timeline in a nuanced medium. Furthermore, the nature and
content of his “public timeline” displays his “communicative
mission” (in c3t terms) on his terms by allowing followers to
see his present and historical communications.