The connection is that the internet really took off when people realised you could use it to connect with each other in new and interesting ways.
YouTube, Facebook, Myspace etc are among the most visited sites and are all about connecting with each other.
Among the younger crowd, people spend more time online than they do infront of their TV.
So, While Facebook itself didn't kill TV, the assertion that social activities online killed TV is becoming increasingly true, especially as more content producers start distributing their stuff online.
Paul just put it in a broad manner (although not 100% accurate, but close enough).
Facebook and youtube/hulu/pirated TV shows are worlds apart to me. Facebook is something you actively take part in, you contribute to. This has almost nothing in common with the passive entertainment of TV that people enjoy. I didn't cancel my cable connection because facebook, AIM, or any other social connecting mechanism came around; it's because I found I could spend my passive hours (read: not typing things) on a computer instead of a TV.
It has nothing to do with the nature of the activity. Graham's point is that the social networks provided the last stimulus needed (over the last 30 years) to get computers into daily use in almost every household in the first world.
You didn't cancel your cable, but you likely spent more time in front of the computer after picking up AIM and FB than before. This signal indicates the front edge of a trend. This is visionary stuff, not hindsight.
YouTube, Facebook, Myspace etc are among the most visited sites and are all about connecting with each other.
Among the younger crowd, people spend more time online than they do infront of their TV.
So, While Facebook itself didn't kill TV, the assertion that social activities online killed TV is becoming increasingly true, especially as more content producers start distributing their stuff online.
Paul just put it in a broad manner (although not 100% accurate, but close enough).