We have this saying around the internetz, "links are the currency of the web." It's actually a bit of an understatement. Links transfer not only attention and authority, but also direction and meaning, helping us figure out where to go and what to expect when we get there.

"rusty chain" by shoothead on flickr
Links don't just transfer meaning directly, when visitors read the context of a link before following it, but also indirectly, through the relevance algorithms of every major search engine, which almost universally include anchor text, even after Google's 2007 algorithm update to diffuse the most blatant link bombs. As Google's webmaster tools explains it:
[Anchor text is] how Googlebot sees your site. [...] This information provides good insight into how your site is seen by others.
This simultaneous transfer of authority and meaning is something I thought about a lot when writing a reeeeeaaalllly long paper on how search engines construct authority, and it comes up again and again professionally when the name of a project I'm working on doesn't correspond directly to search queries I want to optimize it for. Turns out Google rewards boring product names as much as boring headlines.

Anyway, enough with the 2-to-3-year-old search engine links. My point is that the skyrocketing adoption of Twitter and the increased use of URL shorteners it necessitates are altering the dynamics of power and meaning in the link economy. Anecdotally, I've stopped posting anything to my del.icio.us account with the intent of actively encouraging my friends to visit those links. I still save bookmarks in del.icio.us for refindability and tag clouds of my interests, but if I want people to look at something I'm thinking about or working on, Twitter is far and away my first choice. For a larger-scale example, consider that traffic to Fred Wilson's blog from Twitter has tripled in the past three months, and of course, the hockey-stick traffic chart of Twitter itself.

It's worth noting that, according to bit.ly stats (which I obsess over), a reasonable portion of the traffic I send to a link via Twitter comes from it updating my Facebook status—and, indeed, half of that Fred Wilson post I pointed to earlier is about the increased traffic to his blog from Facebook. But Facebook's walled garden approach means that search engine spiders can't find the links we're sharing there at all, so it's pointless to spend time thinking about Facebook in this regard.
Links shared on Twitter, however, are almost always public to spiders as well as humans. Even though Twitter disappointingly barred Google juice from passing through its fingers by adding the nofollow attribute to all tweeted links back in September, most search engines do follow nofollow links—and do use the anchor text in nofollow links to determine the relevancy of a page for the keywords its linked from—they just don't use links with a nofollow attribute to calculate the ranking with which they weight the page's authority generally. But shortened URLs shared on Twitter can't transfer meaning to humans or to spiders because Twitter doesn't allow its users to create links with anchor text.
This can lead to dubious hilarity: URL shorteners make it way easier to rickroll—I mean, rickroll—your friends. The deeper meaning of rickrolling, such as it is, is that neither the clicking human nor the spidering robot knows what to expect on the other side of the link.

"you've been rick-rolled!" by stovak on flickr
For humans who are not being rickrolled, the context of a Tweet usually tells them what to expect, but search engine bots are still at a loss for the meaning they usually retrieve from anchor links. This information is being collected by some URL shorteners—for instance, check out this bit.ly info page for a wikipedia article I recently tweeted—but it's not being passed on to search engines for use in determining relevancy.
This doesn't mean a doomsday for relevancy algorithms: Twitter may be starting to explode into the non-tech-elite world, but it's not outpacing anchor-link-friendly blogging yet.
If it does, I wonder how search engines will rework their relevancy algorithms to include "information on how [a] site is seen by others" in addition to the keywords its creators have planted on it.
related: Check out this Hacker News thread on how URL shorteners are making money that was recently tweeted by my friend Aditya. Pretty interesting that there is no stunningly obvious business model for URL shorteners, despite their seeming positioning as brokers of the link economy. Those who are keeping thorough analytics on their short URLs (like bit.ly and cli.gs) are sitting on a gold mine of data, but it'll take serious work to monetize that information.