I see twitter feeds as a way to filter the info—tweetdeck allows a person to collect a number of diverse voices and filter accordingly to different themes of a users choice. No one is going to read every tweet, but it's nice to have the option outside of search.]]>
If you look up the celebrity gossip show ExtraTV and TMZaol on Twitter are following more than 2000 people.
This is a good question. At one point, I was following many more people than I currently do, and found it overwhelming. I think there is probably a limit to the amount of people one can follow, though that specific number will vary considerably based upon the person, and tools that person uses (I didn't use TweetDeck). I pruned my list, which made my ongoing stream much more digestable to me, though it did offend some people who use monitoring services that alert you when someone “un-follows” you. One thing I don't like about those services is they tend to deliver a message like: “_____ stopped following you after you posted ______” which I think mistakenly links a specific post to someone's decision to stop following you. Chances are they have nothing to do with one another.
I mentioned your post in a comment this morning here: http://www.newfangled.com/twitter_and_the_progr…
I actually saw a few of them almost hit by cars in Austin. Remember folks, look both ways when Twittering…]]>
Are we in the Matrix yet? The machines are definitely winning… Don't get me wrong, Twitter is a great way to share links and talk to people that you would otherwise have no access to… but it should be a sidebar or a complement to real life. People get confused between virtual and reality…
(btw: world's smallest violin playing for industry giant that has bandwidth issues… and also people feel incomplete without social networking access)]]>
and I wouldn't want to know 2,000 people, much less let that define me as a person. I get a lot more done being a casual observer on Twitter…
On a lighter note:
I like rice. Rice is great if you're hungry and want 2000 of something.
What you're more or less correctly objecting to at a low level is that this is Edwards' Law in effect. Where you're not entirely correct is that you chose the wrong mention of that number to quote. Further up on that page, it's defined that the 2000 is an initial limit, which will grow with the number of people following you reciprocally. Also a little more in the third point under “If I hit a limit, what should I do?”
I don't think your RSS counter-example quite holds up for me, on probably several points. On the technological side, no single entity has to eat all the traffic, server load, etc. you cause by following 2000+ feeds; each site independently takes a small portion of that. But RSS subscription is also inherently unlimited, by definition of the medium. To a certain extent, Twitter created a new-ish medium, and are therefore allowed to define it. (Though user behavior has resulted in changes, which we'll come to.) Sociologically, it was and still is defined as primarily an inter-personal communication tool. Having a wildly-skewed follow ratio could in that context be seen as “anti-social,” I guess. Part of the problem right now is that more and more people and entities are using it as a broadcast medium. (Sidenote, I think you're the only person I've ever encountered who has referred to “Twitter feeds” not specifically in reference to the syndication feeds the system creates for users, which may be telling something of your position.)
And, yes, Twitter themselves have almost certainly been complicit in that, so your questions are valid. In the immediate, though, I think they're stuck in the middle of working out a proper answer to them.
 Such as “no images,” which I continue to be surprised isn't being constantly griped about. Pownce had them and more, and languished. There's obviously a tipping-point argument there, but if Twitter's constraints were seen as “bad” then more people should still have jumped ship.]]>
At what point does all the constant messages coming in become noise, and how much time do you spend each hour reading it.
The key term here is “reasonable” – not the power user, not the hardcore Twitter junkie.
This limit might not be for you, but its probably more than adequate for 90% of users IMHO. However I would also add that unless there is some saving on Twitters side on server performance etc by enforcing a limit I don't see why they would impose one.
And just in case it comes up, I do live and work in NYC…]]>