> [WS:] But in the end, it is the face to face contact that matters -
> not virtuality.
Can you define this distinction without begging the question?
I do not think it is possible. The distinction seems to be based on using technology to facilitate social interaction - but new technology (that the speaker usually doesn't "get") only - that makes it "virtual". So it is the twittering and the facebooking which is virtual and silly and "bad!" but technology like the telephone or the printing press or eyeglasses or hearing aids and maybe email since people have been doing it for a long time now - that is all "real" social interaction and therefore "GOOD!"
Having been playing and working with these technologies for almost 20 years, I've heard all this before. First email, then the web, was going to deny us from having relationships with other people as we wasted our time hidden away in isolation. Yet, that hasn't happened, and in fact, the opposite has happened.
What I think is really interesting though is something shag posted - that most of these newer technologies are used by and perhaps targeted at workers - *while they are at work*. Sure, it is just a high-tech version of the water cooler but the boss could always control the water cooler by controlling breaktimes. With this tech, there's very few ways for time spent with it to be monitored effectively (yes you can monitor page changes and data transfered but all that is just an estimate, and a crappy one at that). Those of us in this kind of work environment, with an always-on Internet connection, are actually working less.
Facebook is the number one site accessed at my company (~1500 people working at a computer in the US) and there is no intention to block it. The second most popular site is our external website. :-/
Matt
-- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim: beyondzero123 yahoo msg: beyondzero123
No pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage-ground of truth.
-Francis Bacon