<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Deep Jive Interests &#187; email</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/category/email/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Web 2.0, Social Media, Marketing.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 02:51:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>When Slate Discusses It, They&#8217;re Wise and Prescient.  When Fred Wilson Does It, He&#8217;s Just Ageist.</title>
		<link>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/15/when-slate-discusses-it-theyre-wise-and-prescient-when-fred-wilson-does-it-hes-just-ageist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/15/when-slate-discusses-it-theyre-wise-and-prescient-when-fred-wilson-does-it-hes-just-ageist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Hung</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fred Wilson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Instant Messaging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virtual Worlds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[email]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/15/when-slate-discusses-it-theyre-wise-and-prescient-when-fred-wilson-does-it-hes-just-ageist/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oh, what the difference of a few months makes. Or, rather, perhaps its just the pull of a web magazine, like Slate. Most recently, Slate has come up with an article heralding the death of email, in the face of (&#8230;)</p><p><a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/15/when-slate-discusses-it-theyre-wise-and-prescient-when-fred-wilson-does-it-hes-just-ageist/">Read the rest of this entry &#187;</a></p>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, what the difference of a few months makes.  Or, rather, perhaps its just the pull of a web magazine, like Slate.  Most recently, Slate has come up with an <a href="http://slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/#page_start" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/slate.com');" target="_blank">article heralding the death of email</a>, in the face of a generational shift in communication methods.</p>
<p>Translation: kidz luv IM.</p>
<p>And texting.</p>
<p>And yes, there&#8217;s a lot to be said about what the medium means, irrespective of the message.</p>
<p>Which is funny, however, given how this past June Fred Wilson <a href="http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/06/the_age_questio_1.html" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/avc.blogs.com');" target="_blank">was raked over the coal</a>s for talking about how it was easier for digital natives to see and take advantage for the future.  I think a lot of bloggers were particularly sensitive over the post, and while yes, age doesn&#8217;t matter, in a very real difference, age *does* matter.</p>
<p>(which I discussed <a href="http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/06/17/is-the-web20-necessarily-for-the-young-no-but-on-average-almost-certainly-yes/"  target="_blank">over here about 6 months ago as well</a>).</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a generation of individuals that are using technology in a way that is completely foreign &#8212; even to folks who are &#8220;only&#8221; 5-10 years their senior.  And there&#8217;s *another* digital generation that are 5-10 years *their* junior who are facile at using another kind of technology that teenagers aren&#8217;t quite as &#8216;hip&#8217; to &#8212; virtual worlds a la Club Penguin.</p>
<p>I could also make hand-waving arguments about how these kinds of interactions might _also_ actually have profound effects on brain development, in the way that both generations interact in their interpersonal relationships, and in so doing, provide a vague (but possibly substantial) argument that there is a real organic impact on these folks.</p>
<p>Which makes, in a round about way, Fred Wilson right: there is a generation of people for whom email is a bit of a relic.  Some older folks have made a similar leap, but by and large its a generational *thing* (see Mat Ingram&#8217;s <a href="http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2007/11/15/is-email-dead-no-but-its-not-well/" onclick="javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview('/outbound/article/www.mathewingram.com');" target="_blank">interactions with his own kids</a>), that will allow some of them, by and large to see things that other generations won&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/11/15/when-slate-discusses-it-theyre-wise-and-prescient-when-fred-wilson-does-it-hes-just-ageist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

