> But then again, I can't shake the feeling that this is more about fun than really being close. I remember having close friends in high school and at the university. We spent many hours a day together for several years. Can't fake that, and I doubt anything like that will be born through Snapchat or similar tools.

I've got a whole bunch of friends whom I know mainly from online interaction. Surely that's a new class of friendship, which is useful?

I think there are disadvantages from social networks in the long term as people isolate themselves and allow them to take the place of physical connections, which they don't. But that their advantages from bringing friends to each other is at the same time often without a doubt beneficial. A virtual connection is better than none at all, and I know I would not have the lasting friendships I would have had today if it were not for social networks.

I guess in a perfect world, people would understand the benefits but also fallacies and balance their use of these networks. That's the way I think we could get the most value out of them without exposing ourselves to their issues too much.

Snap Chat is by far the most social of the "social" media applications.

You really have to see how adolescents use it differently from adults to appreciate this. There is a sort of additional language to it in a similar vein to how we all used AIM and its ilk back in the day. For adolescents, who spend time together as you describe, they spend more time sharing experiences over SC augmenting their continuous in person interactions.

We are in danger of speaking past each other regarding the group and type of connection. But I absolutely believe SC is capable of Bri going people together. I do not believe that about any other Social platform. (Excepting blogs and podcasts but those are very different.)

If you define "real" friendship as spending hours in each other's physical presence then of course you're going to say snapchat isn't "real" - that's just circular reasoning though.

> the jury is still out on whether it's good.

i think the jury is in on that - the market being the jury. The overwhelming majority of purchasers decide through no uncertain terms, that factory farming is the way to go.

There are some people who have moral reservations against factory farming, but i believe those numbers are low (despite how loud their voices are). A silent majority (especially through less wealth countries) agree by voting with their wallets.

With a whiff of ouija board.