I recall a quick experiment in class where, by show of hands, we measured the popularity of SnapChat. Prof Cubbon related our results (~30% usage) to that of his undergraduate class (~90%) and commented that Facebook and Twitter have, by nature, different content and different targets. But what does this say about those that do use SnapChat and those that don’t? There are many competitors such as Instagram and Twitter with photos now, but what is so appealing about the alternative? SnapChat allows the viewer to only see the message once and that has some potentially seedy implications. It’s the communication of choice for those risky messages, those that tread close to the line. That caters to a different segment, or more specifically, to a different mood of the same segment, but my conservative self doesn’t see the point. This is particularly true in consideration of how often we choose to text versus phoning, versus real in-person conversation. The chatting and posting has become a form of barrier or form of inebriation. We say and do things we wouldn’t normally say or do. We need to consider that, maybe if we wouldn’t do it in natural circumstances, we should pause and think twice. Why is it that people just don’t want to think twice? We need to move fast, as fast as the information, but I hope somebody creates a network that slows it all down.