Perhaps the lack of emotions in tweets has to do with how employers are scraping social media for bits of personal information? I know people who actually tweet their emotions, but the tweets are all protected. I’d say with the way potential employers would treat this information, few would find it sane to tweet our real emotions.

I think you interpeted what I wrote quite differently but nevertheless its still quite an interesting response.  When I wrote that tweets felt emotionless and anonymous it was more in the sense of how someone can have hundreds upon millions of follower or be followed and with such a large volume of people you can't truely KNOW each and everyone of them. Speaking from example I had over 500 Facebook friends at one time before I logged off for good and I only personally knew about 30 of them. When you have so many so called friends or followers are they really your friends or are they more so a form of bragging rights to boast of how popular you are because lets face it we all want to be apart of the popular crowd. We can only feel emotion or connectedness for lack of a better word from those we see, touch and converse with in REAL life not through a computer and certaintly not through social media. Trending and social media really just plays on our most carnal desire to be popular, know whats happening at all times and be considered one of the cool kids.  

I think I agree with you on the need for real-life connections, but I don’t think I agree with your conclusion that it has to do with popularity (that’s on Facebook — on Twitter it’s a different matter and I really don’t “get” why anyone would, say, “follow” me there). A few years ago I wrote something about this on my blog and I think this still describes my thoughts pretty much accurately:

“So let me postulate: i think, it gives you the feeling—you might even say illusion—that you are in constant touch with your friends.

“Oh, of course… isn’t the whole point of facebook to make it easier to keep in touch with your friends?

“But who, really, are your friends? What does it mean to be a friend on facebook? A close friend? a friend? someone you know? someone you might know? someone you “should” know, a.k.a. mere “contacts” (like “business contacts”)?

“[…] isn’t the most addictive thing to do to read about your friends, to see their photos, to watch their videos? to be like, just like being with them? especially if all—or most—of your closest friends are on Facebook? But isn’t this, like, too faraway, too “impersonal”?

“So perhaps facebook’s addictiveness just means that you should be with your friends more often, or at least pick up the phone and chat with them…”

I get where you're coming from in terms of Facebook being a driving force to want to be with your friends more so to reconnect by "picking up a phone" but I disagree with your overall theory. The nature of addiction goes farther then the preconceived notion of simply wanting to view or even watch what a friend is doing online. The desire to want to view what people post online via anything media has to do with the notion of how our society is a very voyeuristic society. 

In terms of Facebook's or any online social sites addictiveness it's more so I believe has to do with how society as a whole has found new ways to communicate so we over consume these new forms of communication to unhealthy results. It happened with calls when cellphones hit their boom and moved over to texting now it's social media. Our forms of communication are ever growing but at what cost? 

I get how people getting mail or a text or even reading a friends post can make a person long and want to be with that friend more. To go back to my original post on this topic I spoke of how Facebook was addicting but didn't use that word exactly. By now I see it wasn't about Facebook it was how my fellow students choose Facebook as the top priority instead of focusing on the classwork at hand in class and couldn't wait until the class was over to log on. It might have been because of their immaturity level or Facebooks overall "addictiveness" who knows. I take education seriously and to see and have the professor stop the class to tell other students to log off of Facebook multiple times in the class and delay teaching was ridiculous. 

There is a time and a place for everything but in the classroom there should be only one focus...on the topic at hand.

Oh and in my last post any time I used the term follow I was talking about Twitter not about Facebook if you got confused.

I don’t agree that voyageurism is the only conclusion one can make, but I think it’s best if I stopped here.

But by the way, “following” has been part of the Facebook vocabulary since a few months ago. It’s no longer just Twitter.

Hypocritical conjecture...misinterpetational fallacy of the main post.