As it refers to the evolving discussion around the rapidly evolving technologies which are able to track and broadcast your activities 24/7, such as Twitter or Ustream, Mathew Ingram asks the question that begs to be asked: “How Much Is Too Much?”

The answer, I think, like all things is relative. But I think for most people, we passed a point of understanding when Twitter went supernova over South By SouthWest a few weeks ago. Ambient broadcasting tools such as UStream and Twitter, which enable you to broadcast what you’re saying, thinking, or doing while you’re doing it, have an importance which is directly proportional to

a) who is Twittering (or Ustreaming)
b) what they have to say and
c) who they are saying it to.

This sounds kind of obvious, but I’ll suggest that its really the first law of ambient broadcasting.

If the individual who was broadcasting was doing things that are relatively important to his or her audience, then those tools are Important. If they aren’t, then its not. And therefore, I think the word “relative” is key.

Twittering about making toast, going to the toilet, cutting your toenails and other crushingly banal activities make Twitter a useless tool. Unless, however, you had an unhealthy fascination with my particular morning habits, in which case it makes Twitter a fabulous tool (the stalker provision) Or, unless I was the kind of person that MOST people would find my morning habits somewhat interesting (the A-list provision).

The flipside, of course, is when Twitter is used to broadcast stuff that is genuinely interesting or worthwhile, irrespective of the audience. In this case, when its used for this purpose, Twitter is *always* useful. Twitter is *always* useful when its used to broadcast emergency notices, sudden and urgent events that are happening, or just-in-time news that isn’t readily available through normal channels. Its also useful, but less so, when its communicating things that could just as easily be communicated through normal channels, such as a blog or email list.

The rhythm and cadence of Twittering (and Ustreaming to a lesser extent) actually demonstrates an interesting dynamic between the broadcasting of the banal (which might be relatively interesting, or not) and the broadcasting of the important; that is, most chatter is usually banal, and its punctuate by periods of events or circumstances that are important to a great many individuals.

While I personally think that all of this is too much, as I don’t have a need to know certain things on a super-urgent basis, nor do I find the personal habits and routines of anyone truly fascinating, ambient broadcasting will have a niche because there are people that do — on both fronts.

And its clear who really benefits? (Seth Finklestein, are you listening? :)

1) People who already have lots of attention: And in the blogosphere, its people who already have large audiences, or large amounts of traffic to their blog. Its easy to see why: many people are already interested in the blogger and what he or she does. Twittering to a large audience merely reinforces that fact, and in turn, if the audience twitters back, is an exponential return on their time. In this case, some people *are* interested in the crushingly banal, for no other reason than they are minor celebrities (or notoriously so) in they’re own right. And it pays the A-lister back when people actually care or respond to their Twitters. Of course, for Ustreaming, the principle also applies. There is an attention “cost” that’s higher for watching full motion video (getting brief interruptions via Twitter “costs” less), but A-listers will be the beneficiaries of this kind of technology because they already have a built in audience who will be happy to “pay” to watch them.

2) People who are unique, odd, or shamelessly flamboyant: This is the YouTube effect. Or, call it Tubebait. There’s a reason why Justin.tv has taken off — its because it was the first, and he’s been a shameless (or brilliant) marketer of himself through these kind of technologies. Having sex on camera? Not out of bounds for Justin. If you’re willing to make a sheer spectacle out of yourself and shed the sense of shame most people would have in doing so, you just might find an audience for yourself through ambient broadcasting. While the person him or herself might not already be extraordinary, their activities *are*, which invites us all to participate in a peculiar kind of voyeurism.

Of course there are lists and lists for the “legitimate” reasons why this kind of technology is useful, but I’ll reiterate what I said above. The best reason why its useful is the just-in-time, or even “live” broadcasting of stuff that is important or interesting for many, many people, or even, “everyone”. A secret “live” broadcast of a concert. Live-twittering of a conference. Broadcasting true emergencies, like natural disasters.

But, the problem of course, is that these kinds of “real” events that are “important” happen relatively infrequently, which leads some of us to navel gaze and discuss the relative importance of these tools.

Twittering, Ustreaming, and a host of other technologies that have yet to be developed, enable us all to broadcast what we’re doing, how we’re doing *as* we’re doing it. There are clear benefits for certain individuals and in certain circumstances, and its in those circumstances that these tools have a real “use”.

But for most people who use it to watch others or to broadcast their own ideas, its pretty banal stuff, and to answer Mathew Ingram’s question — for most, yes, I think its far too much.

In a relative, sort of way, though. ;)