Twitter: The Law of the Vital Few

"The Law of the Vital Few" is amongst the most unpopular ideas of the last two hundred years. First framed as a social scientific truth by the early 20th century Italian economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, it states that in all societies throughout human history a small minority of individuals and organizations have held more political, economic and cultural power than the majority. The Law of the Vital Few isn't a popular idea with the majority, of course, because it marginalizes most people making them, at best, incidental players in their own histories. Nor is Pareto's idea particularly popular with elites because it can be used to expose their power and reveal the self-interest of their actions.

The microblogging service Twitter proves the Law of the Vital Few. As Silicon Alley Insider's Peter Kafka argues today, "while Twitter theoretically treats all voices equally, some carry much more weight than others." Thus, a dominant Twitterer like Jason Calacanis has 43,000 followers while a total loser like me has only 9. Twitter could indeed have been invented by Pareto as proof of his theorem. One has only two possible identities on Twitter: either as a follower or as the followed. A small percentage of Twitterers like Colbert, Scoble, Obama, Arrington and Winer are the followed distributing their wisdom to their followers. While all the rest of us, Pareto's huddled masses, are doing the following.

There is only one problem with Twitter. When it comes to reliable information, the followed aren't always very reliable. Today, for example, Twitter is abuzz with rumors about a US invasion of Iran. With most of our reliable newspapers on the brink of shutting down, where better to check for the latest global news than the massively popular Twitter. The problem, however, is that Twitter doesn't have a bureau in Tehran. Thus, Pareto's Law of the Vital Few kicks in and Jason Calacanis becomes the trusted source for news about the invasion. Now, I have the greatest respect and affection for Jason, but the one thing I don't trust the Santa Monica based entrepreneur about is Iran. But, as SAI's Kafka argues, Calacanis' has become Twitter's de facto authority this morning on the Iran rumors:

So when he (Calacanis) taps out "Breaking: US miltary plane forced to land in Iran after breaking air space. Just heard on France24 hour news. October surprise? Hostages?!" that has huge ripple effect in the Twittersphere.

Combine Vilfredo Pareto's Law of the Vital Few with Adam Smith's Law of Unintended Consequences and what you get is Jason Calacanis as Our Man in Tehran.

Comments

[Stephen Smoliar]

Andrew, I am sure you know Marx' take on the repetition of history, which is that what is tragedy the first time comes back as farce the second. It had not occurred to me that he might have been using the Law of Unintended Consequences as part of his arsenal for bashing Hegel in THE 18TH BRUMAIRE! So, when it turns out that a "Calacanis twit" is the root cause of Bush deciding to invade Iran, will YOU classify that as farce?

[Charles Arthur]

This is wrong in so many ways. First, Jason Calcanis has lots of followers because he's been on Twitter a long time; you haven't. No other particular reason. Perhaps you'll gain his number of followers if you produce lots of timely, accurate, interesting tweets. That's the currency of the service - timeliness, accuracy, interesting(ness). In general, pick two - rather like good/fast/cheap.

Second, you mistake Twitter for a news service. It isn't. It's a social medium where people form ad-hoc networks, forming and reforming them through the day, depending who they're following and being followed by. I don't follow any of Winer, Scoble, Colbert, Obama (I follow Arrington, but keep thinking I'll stop soon, since his stuff is not relevant to what I'm interested in).

Third, one's Twitter identity is not *either* follower or followed. It's both at the same time. I don't know (or bother about) who follows me or why; I only know who I follow, and who messages (@s) me. I don't mind what the numbers are, only that I get use out of it. If I don't get useful information, I'll either stop using it or, much more likely, find new people with better insight to follow.

But honestly- to have been on Twitter 5 minutes (one update!) and then write this is unbelievably slack. Lazy, uninformed, amateurish and plain wrong. If a professional journalist wrote it, I'd throw it back at them and point out its failings. What's your excuse?

Charles

[Tom]

But the inaccurate Iran plane story wasn't broken by Twitter, it was broken by the traditional media - reported by a local news agency, then picked up and disseminated through conventional broadcast channels. The clue is in the bit where Calcanis says "Just heard on France24 hour news", which is pretty clear as far as stating your sources goes. Calcanis wasn't Our Man in Tehran, nor was he claiming to be. Our Man in Tehran was, in fact, a man in Tehran.

[JJ Commoner]

You, sir, are an idiot masquerading as an amateur.

[charles]

The cult of the amateur.