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 bab

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... 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. 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. 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. 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.