I suppose I am one of only a few here who agrees with the author. He calls them fashions, I'd call them fads. They are fads, like the pet rocks and beanie babies and friendster and on and on. There will probably be die hards forever, but innovation won't stop and there will be newer and better ways to communicate in the future, so these new things will become old, just like newspapers and magazines and television...<p>Facebook and Twitter actually damage real world interactions from what I have seen. Before facebook, when you saw someone, you had a conversation with them and you could make small talk filling in the gaps of what has happened since the last time you met.<p>Now, people say, "Why are you asking if I'm dating someone, why don't you look at my facebook page?" It's like you have to go catch up with someone's facebook page before you meet them.<p>I don't know maybe it is something about a particular kind of mind. I don't hate FB or Twitter, but I don't understand the real value. Maybe there is real value that can be gotten, I don't know... I don't really use them too much.<p>I suppose the author's point though is that he doesn't like Facebook and Twitter because they are just more of the same stuff in real life. In real life, people are boring and on Facebook and Twitter, there's just more of that same boring kind of interaction. I wonder if he were to find interesting friends in real life and interact with them online would it make his impression of facebook and twitter different? A lot of people I admire/respect use twitter and facebook, so there has to be something there, they just aren't for me. But neither is WOW or Shoots and Ladders or TV or reading romance novels. Doesn't make those things bad, just "not for me." There's no reason to believe that same "not for me" can't apply to things lots of people find popular on the internet too.
Article isnt saying much, and pretty much misses the point of social networking in general.<p>there is a huge gap between your friends that you talk to every day, and long lost strangers you havent seen in 20+ years. not only that there is a difference between the amount and type of information thats exchanged online / face to face.<p>facebook / twitter etc enable the type of information exchange that people have been trying to do since forever, in a better way.<p>the idea that they will just quietly pass through when didnt some study put facebook as 90% of internet time somewhere recently? just a bit off base.
I've been writing a blog for 8 years. I'll probably be writing one 10 years from now.<p>Facebook? Not so much. Twitter? It'll probably pass in a few years.
"I’m not surprised to see my cousin use such things as she’s a “people person” - she always wants to be a center of attention - that validates her existence. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t condemn her"<p>well, as long as he doesn't condemn her.
His main argument seems to be "I don't like it, therefore eventually people will stop doing it." Just because he doesn't see a point to social networking doesn't mean that everybody feels that way.
Sarcastically going through Twitter Trends is about as strong an argument as the xkcd character shouting "Stop having fun!" (<a href="http://xkcd.com/359/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/359/</a>)
He thinks he is so smart, but has not yet realized that what the media portrays Twitter to be is not necessarily what the users perceive it to be.<p>Edit: to clarify, it seems to me he based his assessment of Twitter on what the media writes about Twitter, not on real knowledge of Twitter.