4 ms·
The point is that with AIM (or instant messenger, generally), you knew who was up for chatting. If someone wasn't up for chatting, they either would have an awa
by wl 9y ago
The point is that with AIM (or instant messenger, generally), you knew who was up for chatting. If someone wasn't up for chatting, they either would have an away message or wouldn't be signed on at all. Sure, I can text my friends at any hour. But they might be out at dinner. Or at a concert. Or trying to sleep.
- jasonkostempski 9y agoI made quite a few friends as a result of friends-of-friends joining a chat, friend leaves for the night and the conversation continues even without the intermediary friend. That happens with IRL interactions sometimes too but not as often in my experience, usually everyone leaves if the links are broken. I don't think most people would continue a conversation with someone they didn't really know after they happened to be part of the same group text either.
- eropple 9y agoHappens sometimes amongst my friend groups with Facebook groups. Though I also don't really have a problem with going "hey, I'm not headed home, want to go get a drink at the next place?" with folks I've just met through a friend, and nobody really ever seems to have a problem with the question.
- adha 9y ago> The point is that with AIM (or instant messenger, generally), you knew who was up for chatting. If someone wasn't up for chatting, they either would have an away message or wouldn't be signed on at all. That's an interesting feature I think, but nothing is preventing that to be implemented on a new or current chat program. It would solve the distraction problem of always being available and online.