Twitter is one of the most viral platforms on the social web. One link can be spread to millions of people in a matter of minutes. Perhaps the primary reason for this is the Twitter retweet. A retweet (or “RT”) provides Twitter users and easy way to share interesting updates from people they are following. We even wrote a guide on the retweet.
Facebook on the other hand is many magnitudes bigger, but doesn’t have the same viral power that Twitter contains. Why? The big reasons are probably the close nature of Facebook streams, the lack of a real-time search engine, and no comparable “retweet” syntax. While Facebook is tackling the first two, the third one may be what trips up Facebook’s assault on Twitter.
I agree that Facebook could stand to create a similar system, but I'm sure they're tired of taking flack for trying to "be like Twitter." We shall see what they come up with.
I agree. I think FB is already working on something to compete or be better. Before long someone will win the war (most likely Google) and the we wont need to worry about it!
I thought they already have, isn't that what they tried to do with their new home page. I rather see more functionality like better photo management and better friends list management.
Likes appear in your own wall, but I'm pretty sure they don't appear in your friends' news feeds. I also don't like the fact that the Share option on a Page Wall doesn't give any credit back to the original sharer of the content.
If facebook and textilesinfomediary.com dot not able to cop up with twitter. Then Facebook and textilesinfomediary.com have equal option to start with retweet.A sequal of twitter.
twitter's powerful because it's simple and public. FB is not. There's no war, the two services are different, for different purposes. MIcro-blogging, vs Social Network.