Facebook Suicide

I have a Facebook profile.

But do I use it in the way as the author of the article "Facebook Suicide" uses (or, rather used) it? No.
My Facebook account is primarily there, as a point of connection to the groups in my real life-- take, for example, the group of filmmakers who meet every Thursday on campus, the group of poets and audience who converge at the local bistro for some open mic time. In another words, the primary use of my Facebook account is to keep in touch with the groups in my "real life," as a facilitator between me and these groups (and their members). I am assured that should I need to contact the group or one of the members, the contact is possible (as opposed to in real life, in which personal contact information may not always be exchanged due to time constrain, etc.). Similarly, Facebook allows people whom I have met or do not meet regularly in "real life" to keep in touch with me, if only as a "temporary" communication in
between the times we would meet in real life.

So how would a Facebook suicide, as described in the article, affect me? It would certain make these "always available" contact information not available at my disposal. But if there is not the mentality that "the contact information is always available on Facebook," then the Facebook-less person in question could always ensure exchange of contact information upon meeting the person, or what one might call it "the old fashioned way"...but it could be argued, that the quality of the real life interaction would suffer without the contact information on Facebook or on the internet-- that the need to ensure exchange contact information, and having as much as possible of these exchanges, would cut down the time of the real interaction, and the attention paid to the interaction itself.
So while I do not exert effort to keep a perfect image of myself on Facebook, a Facebook suicide would make communication with my "real life" groups and their group members difficult; most of these groups meet regularly, so the issue at hand is not the meeting time, or the lack of knowledge of which-- the issue is that I would not be able to learn the specific topics of each meeting, which could affect my attendance or absence at these meetings. Of course, the lack of knowledge of the going-ons of the group is only an issue because these groups choose to use Facebook as the primary interface... if they so choose, they could use other interface, such as maintaining an email list, etc.
The author makes this argument in the article:
Facebook is not "real life." The use of Facebook by many is a way to fill up the empty void of modern alienation; further, the use of facebook to fill up modern alienation is a cycle that generate greater sense of alienation, as face book is not "real life."

I disagree strongly with the author argument on two points:
1) I feel that Facebook, along with other social networking sites, are what Marshall McLuhan might call neutral tools-- that what really matters, is how the tools are used. My Facebook use is not alienated from my "life life"-- the groups that I keep in touch through Facebook are groups in my real life.
2) the author deems "real life" as inherently valuable, where as "virtual life" is valueless and empty-- again, as I mentioned above, "virtual life" need not be divorced from "real life"-- further, if "virtual life" is a way to feed modern sense of alienation, as the author claims, then there's no guarantee that the interaction we have in "real life" is completely different from "virtual life".... in another words, it is perfectly feasible for one to carry on "empty Facebook conversations and narcissism" with people in real life, just as it is perfectly feasible for one to carry on analytical, well-thought-out conversations during interactions in "virtual life."
The author seems to imply that all Facebook use and socialization are empty voids, while all real life and socialization are meaningful and not empty-- but while the structure of "real life" and "virtual life" may affect the specific interaction and the content (or lack of) of the interaction, there's no reason to think that either "real life" interactions or "virtual life" interactions is inherently valuable or inherently valueless.
It should be pointed out here, that whether the interaction on either "real life" or "virtual life" is valuable and meaningful might have less to do with where the interactions occurs, and more to do with how the interaction is carried out-- the concept of the "neutral tool," as mentioned above, is what I believe to really matter on the issue of "real life" vs. "virtual life."