>"This demographic "dates" less and increasingly relies on social media to communicate."
This is at least a quantitative and verifiable claim. But similar statements could be made about the rise of the telephone, or the cultural/temporal shift from courtship to long-term relationships that aren't marriage. What of it?
>"As a result, the depth of their relationships is relatively shallow compared to those of older generations at the same point in their lives."
Categorically dismissing an entire demographic's ability to care about other human beings is kind of a big deal. This is a non-obvious and offensive claim. It could be true, but it definitely requires support; instead, you treat it like it's self-evident.
It's a favorite tidbit of conventional wisdom among columnists, sure. It has truthiness and makes its audience feel good about themselves, kind of like "the terrorists hate us for our freedom." That doesn't make it a psychological truth.
I also believe Lulu is a Bad Thing - people change, have different tastes, behave differently under different circumstances, are unduly influenced by others' opinions, could be mysteriously and permanently cut off from any chance at a relationship literally overnight by pissing off one articulate and/or creative Lulu user, etc. These are merely practical problems, before you even get into the ethical concerns of treating people like mass-produced goods.
But people who need to hear that are not going to be terribly interested in what you have to say after you openly insult them.
