Who's Statusphere is it Anyway?

TechCrunch had a great article on the impact of Twitter and other forms of social media on blogging.

They raise the question of whether microblogging, social networks etc. are diminishing bloggers influence in the "statusphere" (great word!).

TechCrunch has come up with their own way of measuring a blog's influence (pretty much based on how many other websites link to your blog) and they argue that leading blog's have been loosing "influence" while the number of blogs and blog posts in general continue to grow.

Certainly you can argue with their way of measuring influence is flawed or there is a natural diluting of influence as the number of blogs grow etc. But what's really interesting about the article is how new forms of social media can actually expand a blog discussion beyond a web page.

When you look at the number of links to blog posts and web articles on Twitter or commenting on articles on Facebook, Friend Feed etc. you realize that discussions are transcending the blogger's world into the greater virtual world at large. Hence the blogger's community (or "tribe" for you Seth Godin fans) is growing organically without the blogger's effort or potentially knowledge.

And when that happens it certainly begs the question of who's "statusphere" is it anyway? Does it matter whether the "influence point" is given to the original blogger who started the conversation or should the "influence point" be shared among all those who spread and embellished on the original thought?

If an idea or opinion is worth stating, certainly it's worth spreading no matter how that happens.