Bubble 2.0 datapoint of the day: ReadWriteWeb is running an article with the title "Does Twitter deserve a Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe not yet, but it could someday." Fortunately, they acknowledge the idea is ridiculous for the moment and are really just responding to this outlandish post by Bush's Deputy National Security Advisor. Nonetheless, besides encompassing a continuation of the shameful "Twitter revolutionized Iran" meme, much of the article is spent lauding Twitter as an idealistic (but hardly realized) "new plane of communication."
But it's not all bad. RWW decides that Twitter does not, in fact, deserve a Nobel prize. The reasons are fourfold (despite being sugarcoated by the "Twitter is magical" bit):
Twitter is a magical thing. It will be even more magical once it opens up to communication with other networks, solves the problem of archiving what could be historically important conversations, facilitates greater amounts of conversation analysis and of course, grows in size.
Those middle two look an awful lot like data model issues - the very ones I've been ranting about for months and most recently described in detail just last week. RWW goes so far to say that "If someone isn't doing something to change the lack of accessible archives on Twitter, it's absolutely criminal" and in my info-noia I agree. The first and fourth points are sort of obvious - the latter being a fairly exogenous factor.
So from this otherwise completely ridiculous article, I take some vindication: apparantly, the only thing standing between Twitter going from " just a company that made some software" to winning a Nobel Peace Prize are the very features I have insisted since day one are not only necessary to support but dangerous to exclude.
While it's promising to see some mainstream attention beginning to be paid to these details, I won't hold my breath.