Since launching our Twitter feed last week, we've been encountering various responses to this technology – the most frequent one being: isn't this pointless? However, to paraphase Marshall McLuhan, if the medium is the message, what message is Twitter telling us?

A well known legal industry author & commentator (no, not Charles Christian) reports that while delivering a keynote speech in Chicago last week, he was amused to see that half the audience appeared to be online 'twittering' about his speech. He was even more amused to subsequently see that another member of the 'twitterati' (yes, that's what they are called) had reviewed his book and his speech without reading or seeing either but instead was offering his comments purely on the basis of the tweets other people were making.

So is this a viable technology or an example of an out-of-control system which appears to be generating its own momentum regardless of the quality of the content. In fact, rather like the early days of email, where people so busy dealing with email that they were unable to get on with their day jobs?

PS As the essence of a twitter is the ability to enshrine a message in 140 characters & spaces, isn't it rather defeating the objective if twitterers are filing storing as a series of linked tweets? And, of course, its expensive for anyone who has signed up to receive twitters over their mobile phones and is paying text message rates.