Through all this thread, I'm really surprised at the notions of class that are being bandied about. With the exception of the reference to the lumpenproletariat, I see a real dearth of class theory. Yes, class is about relationship to the means of production (Marx). But it is also about relationship to the ability to control the work of others (Olin Wright). And it is also about the unspoken behaviors that reveal one's social capital (Bourdieu). I believe what this essay is really about is the intersection of the material manifestation of class (habitus perhaps) and how that is transformed in the virtual space. It is also about the "appropriate" behavior of the respective "fronts" of Myspace and Facebook. I would apply Goffman's dramaturgical approach to understanding why certain groups gravitate to either place -- the "scripts" of each are distinct and have a certain "digital habitus" that comply to respective classes (in Olin Wright's sense of the term). I think this is a process of unriddling and not so much describing the "typical" FB or Myspace profile. This is why a qual study is the right approach IMO. Though much of the news hits on this is about "study says FB is richer" etc etc, which I find so annoying because Danah's research does not establish that. If I were to put on my "brand account planner" hat for a moment, I would say the "brand molecule" of FB is much more attractive to White, educated, members of the managerial class (or at least their children) because its front has scripts that embrace hegemonic scripts. In the words of Bourdieu, the users of Myspace "refuse what they were refused" when they diss on FB.