It is the narcissistic middle-aged, not the young, who love Facebook and Twitter
spectator.co.uk
spectator.co.uk
In case my point is not clear: we don't actually know the demographic break-down of who uses social internet sites like Twitter and Facebook. At least, I don't, and I've never read anyone cite any studies. Consequently, this piece, and write-ups like it, are speculation.
My complaint is that there's no evidence for his premise. In other words, he's trying to explain something that might not be true in the first place. I worry that he, and his readers, don't know the distinction.
Twitter's demographics: http://www.istrategylabs.com/twitter-2009-demographics-and-s...
Facebook's demographics: http://www.istrategylabs.com/2009-facebook-demographics-and-...
Twitter does slant older. 52% of Twitter users are over 34, whereas only 8.5% of Facebook's users are over 34.
I can't tell you how many times I've caught a drink, attended a community event, or grabbed a bite to eat with my friend(s) simply because I read he was nearby, etc. Real-time communication makes things more exciting for people that like more spontaneity in their life. I think introverts tend to have a problem with it, and are the most critical of others having fun and socializing.
But if we look at the historical significance of the Internet, it was built by and has been largely dominated by introverts. The Internet has always kind of been the one place we can all "find each other" to have interesting, stimulating conversation while the rest of the world gabs about trivial things.
However, Facebook, Twitter (to some extent), et. al, have really brought extroverts in full-force to the Internet, and to some extent they are encroaching on our "space." The hype has definitely clogged up the noise-to-signal ratio, and weeding through all of the extraneous fluff can be tiresome.
So maybe it's not that introverts are exactly "critical," of the new narcissistic "lookie at me! lookie at magazine cover!" vibe the Internet has taken on, but that it subtracts substantially from what makes the Internet interesting.
I am a boomer, but no particular fan of boomers, yet one who will stand up and say that boomers, like others, come in all shapes and sizes and are not all strutting peacocks, contrary to what the author says or implies.
And since when does using social networking to better connect with friends, or for any of a number of business, social, or other purposes, become a mere outlet for vanity?
Even if his premise were true, the author does a lame job of advancing it.
Seriously though, did we need a link to obviousland today? It that what HN is for?