What I find ironic and laughable at the same time is the article doesn't mention usability of the software deployed by the two sites and how that might actually factor in. Assuming it has a racial connotation is absurd. IMO, Facebook has a better interface, making it easier on the eyes, makes use of less ads, etc. etc. -- any part of that racial? I'd like to answer by using more derogatory words in this space because the assumption by this author is simply ignorant, but then I'd be lowering myself to this author's level.
You should read the original, not the craptastic blog summary.
It does indeed mention the usability differences between the two sites, then goes on to discuss how the prime deciding factor between a teenager using one site or the other is rather: "Simply put, they go where their friends are."
Further it's not ascribing racist motivations to anyone's choice of social network, instead making the observation that, by going where their friends are, existing socio-economic divides are being perpetuated into social networks.
What I find ironic and laughable at the same time is the article doesn't mention usability of the software deployed by the two sites and how that might actually factor in. Assuming it has a racial connotation is absurd. IMO, Facebook has a better interface, making it easier on the eyes, makes use of less ads, etc. etc. -- any part of that racial? I'd like to answer by using more derogatory words in this space because the assumption by this author is simply ignorant, but then I'd be lowering myself to this author's level.