ah. OK. Misunderstood.
Just to take a contrarian position and because I've been doing research on the psychology and sociology that is being used to manipulate behavior on FB, Twitter, etc., one thing that people have been saying for awhile is that there is a lifecycle to things like discussion lists. The lifecycle generally follows the same patterns we see in sociology/psychology of love, sociology of addition, and research on depressive behavior.
In other words, it often has little to do with the bad moral behavior of individuals (not that you said this) or the lack of will power on the part of list members to devote time to the list or even that, per se, the technology is antiquated and old.
What you are seeing is not about old technology but the systematic manipulation of our behavior. If these principles weren't being systematically deployed in order to stave off what was, historically, the typical lifecycle of interactive social media, then you would probably see the same thing happening elsewhere.
In the cases of facebook and twitter, not only do they use methods to make people feel stimulated, addicted, and - for about 25% - depressively attached to the interaction, they also tie it to people daily lives by attaching obsessive behavior on social media with people's careers and/or the success of organizations to which they are affiliated. If you want to affiliate with people way out of your league, who'd never pay attention to you otherwise, hit Twitter. That's what you read in all the guides to social media. They dangle it out there like it's the new Horatio Alger story. "Look! You never know! You could become famous, get a job, hit the lecture circus, land a gig! Who knows?! it's worth a shot and you get to talk to important people!"
One pamphlet published by marketing firm even goes so far as to delve into the research they've done on how publicly attacking people and entities can be used to your career and business advantage. Though, of course, they present all this in the guise of "science." The idea is that Twitter - with it's easy to convey @ identities which are great for marketing - Follow me at @... -- is an essential marketing tool, and probably the one with the most sophisticated methods for converting the psychology of addition to the business rules that guide their software development.
Meanwhile, Facebook's Zuckerberg wants to make it has famously insisted that he wants Facebook to be a utility. Not a software utility alone. Rather, a utility like the cable or power company. Something with which you'd no more live your life without these than you'd go without water to live. This is why he hired Sheryl Sandberg - went after her hard, in fact - because she had political experience and ties to help him negotiate the regulatory waters.
At 08:18 PM 12/14/2013, John Gulick wrote:
> >It's because they are carrying over conversations on facebook and twitter
>and forgetting that not everyone subscribes.
>
>Au contraire. I started the thread. I haven't been on Facebook (save for a
>few minutes) since August, and I've never ever been on Twitter. In fact
>one reason I started the thread is because I'm not on social media.
>Anyway, to the degree there's any activity on the list, much of the
>commentary is meta, and I'll let that speak for itself.
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)