Twitter Bests Digg, Better Interaction, Inclusion?

How exactly does Twitter use "the power of the many to aggregate together what's important"?

It doesn't count on aggregation, it counts on echoes -- different mechanism.

And-- get this-- Facebook allows you to use more than 140 characters!

The big difference in my opinion is that you get to choose who you listen to with Twitter, while Digg is comprised of a mass of voices, most of whom you don't know and don't care about.

I stopped following Digg because most of the top stories are selected by a narrow niche of tech guys. Even in special areas like "Business," dorm-room humor dominates.

With Twitter, I carefully create a network that is personally relevant and meaningful to me.

Depends on how you define aggregation. To me, lots of echos ends up acting as a pointer to what's on people's minds, therefore, a type of aggregation.

Heather: Aggregation needs metrics, which Digg has.

But otherwise Bob hits the nail on the head. People use Twitter or Facebook because their friends are using it (which is what makes it seem "inclusive"). Digg has the same problem as the ol' MSM -- some group you are not social with sets the agenda. A good media outlet/personality has traditionally needed to project a personality *as if* they were your social circle.

Apples and Oranges here. Digg and Twitter are both interesting and functional for different reasons. Digg for aggregation and Twitter for creating specific social feeds.

There is one defining factor though and that is that Twitter has has digital security issues in the past couple of months. Digg isn't that personal a device and fear of being hijacked isn't an issue.

I hear http://www.justaskgemalto.com is going to be starting a blog soon on defining digital security. This would make a great comparison article for them.