If the "feeling of togetherness" is the product, then social networks have succeeded where 2L failed, if we use market acceptance as our measure of success. It

If the "feeling of togetherness" is the product, then social networks have succeeded where 2L failed, if we use market acceptance as our measure of success. It boils down to the question of what makes one feel "together" with another person? With the success of social networks like Facebook and Twitter as proof, many people find a common expression of sentiment typed-out and displayed on a shared-view in a timely manner is sufficient to engender feelings of togetherness with other people. What 2L brought to the table was the virtual environment. While many people find that online gaming brings a strong feeling of togetherness, I would argue that this feeling is driven largely by the common purpose present in most games. It doesn't matter whether the game is an MMORPG, or a shooter like Battlefield 3. The game provides the purpose, and the gaming network provides the social conduit. This doesn't mean you can't have deep and meaningful relationships through these networks; just that the game provides the impetus. With Facebook and Twitter, the common purpose exists in the real world, which makes the virtual reality of 2L redundant. Most people simply don't need it to feel connected while watching a TV show, finishing their run, lounging around reading online, or attending a concert.