As most of you hopefully already know, a 5.8 magnitude earthquake struck the East Coast today. The power of the quake spread quickly, sending tremors from the Virginia epicenter all the way to New York City and Boston. At an equal if not expedited pace, folks picked up their favorite digital devices and started tweeting and Google+ing about the potential coming of the apocalyptic end-times:

In the heat of the tectonic quivering, I decided that it might be interesting to see how well each of my beloved social networks–namely, Facebook, Twitter, and Google+–performed in the divulging of the the details of this ongoing earthquakery. More specifically, I was really interested to find out:

1. Which network reported the news first? A matter of minutes could mean the difference between life and death. Or, at the very least, it could mean that you know about something a few minutes before the less-connected masses.
2. Which network reported the news with the most nuance and color commentary? It’s nice to know a factoid before the proletariat hoard, but if you really want to impress the ladies, you have to be able to speak about a factoid-based topic with some level of breadth and humanistic insight.
3. Which network was the least irreverent? I have friends in New York and Boston. I care about their lives. So, call me crazy, but I’d prefer to read coverage that isn’t interstitched with trolls spouting off “I pooped” and “I eat poop” commentary. Social streams aren’t to be confused with shit streams. Social streams should be drillable, filterable, and flowing with an ever-changing base of pertinent (though possibly tangential) content.
4. Which network put my worries at ease, and which network made me pray for the return of Jesus on a white horse? The mechanics of certain platforms tend to reward users for magnifying drama. I don’t like that. Which network rewarded users for their fairness and their balancedness?
5. Which network inspired the most dialogue? I can only read so many “Earthquake n E Coast” posts before I switch the channel. I’m intrigued to see which network forced people not only to react–but also to reflect.

So, here goes nothing. I’d be intrigued to hear if your social networks yielded different results. So, keep tabs on my answers, and let me know if you disagree. I’d love to find out what you think.

---

1. Which network reported the news first?

Winner: Twitter, Loser: The Elderly (i.e. Regular News Outlets)

Twitter barely eked out a win. For me, it was the difference between knowing about the earthquake prior to cooking my morning oatmeal, or after. Moreover, the “win” is subjective, considering that most of the tweets in my stream said something to the effect of “WTF just happened?”.

The first tweet, for example, came from @jzy at 7:54 a.m. Notice the WTF-esque confusion. Twitter correspondence occurs so close to the point of impact that the content often exposes the act of figuring out answers, as opposed to offering them pre-canned:

---

Which network reported the news with the most nuance and color commentary?

Winner: Google+, Loser: Twitter

Four minutes after jzy’s tweet, I read the following post from Scoble+ (that’s what I call my Google+ stream). Notice the exponential increase in content quality: the size of the earthquake, the location, the recognition that “Earthquakes suck”. Also notice the Woody-Allen-esque self-awareness of those using the Google+ platform (i.e. even the occurrence of a natural disaster turns into a platform for positing the worth of Google+ over Facebook). Twitter may have won the speed battle, but, IMHO, this post was worth the four minute wait:

---

Which network was the least irreverent?

Winner: Facebook, Loser: Twitter

Six minutes after Scoble+’s earthquake post, a Facebooker chimed in. It was the first earthquake-related post in my stream, but I might’ve been late to the Zuckerbergian party:

Notice the tone of concern. Also notice the admission of feeling fear (which takes a kind of courage and trust that a Twitter user may be weary of disclosing).

In contrast, check out this irreverent list of the Top Earthquake Tweets of 2011.

More importantly, I’m beginning to sense an interesting pattern here:

1. First, Twitter erupts with WTF’s. Twitter is fast-paced, character-limited, and heavily data-focused. Hence, speed and data-dispersal are of the essence.
2. Then, Google erupts with answers to the WTF’s. Google+ is wordy (like Henry James), able to summarize large chunks of content, and, like Twitter, data-focused. Hence, data summarization and data visualization are of the essence.
3. Then Facebook erupts with friends and family making sure that no loved ones are dead or injured. Facebook is slower-paced, closer to IRL, and friend-focused. Hence, empathy and social outreach are of the essence.

Meanwhile, at Twitter headquarters:

---

Which network put my worries at ease, and which network made me pray for the return of Jesus on a white horse?

Winner: No One, Really

This question turned out to be a bit of a dud, mostly because the earthquake didn’t cause a great deal of damage. Apologies. Please don’t hurt me. If it’s any consolation, check out this picture of the DESTRUCTION in D.C. (p.s. we’re all going to die):

---

5. Which network inspired the most dialogue?

Winner: Google+ and Facebook, Loser: Twitter

Here’s where Google+ and Facebook really win out over Twitter: noise reduction. On the one hand, for around an hour or two, Twitter became a constant barrage of mindless “floor is shkng.. EARTHQUAKE” tweets. On the other hand, Google+ and Facebook sparked actual conversations (notice that Scoble+ had a running thread of 80 comments), which led to dynamically evolving (and pleasurably digressing) group conversations.

To prove this point, I searched for the word “Earthquake” in each of my social feeds. The frequency of “Earthquake” in my Twitter feed was nearly ten times higher. That’s a lot of earthquakes. And it revealed to me the mind-blowing end-all Twitter epiphany:

This isn’t conversation; this is noisy regurgitation.

Which I immediately posted to Twitter.

And, minutes later:

---

Okay. What’s Next?

So, that’s that. I think the earthquake shook a little dust off the social shelf and shed a wee bit of light on what exactly each social network “is” and “is for”. You may disagree with me. Or, maybe I’ve helped you bucket your posting algorithm. For example:

1. If you’re going to say “Happy Birthday,” do it on Facebook. That’s where empathy lives.
2. If you’re going to make fun of a tragic event, go to Twitter. That’s where irreverence and anonymity live.
3. If you’re going to share an infographic about the merits of abortion with your friends, go to Google+. That’s where nerdy data visualization lives.

And, last but not least:

If you’re going to write a tl;dr article about the merits of each social network, publish it somewhere private, and pray that the empathetic, nerdy, and irreverent folks in the world come in drones to read it.