Somehow I never get to read real numbers from Dana Boyd. The only number is "... who has spent so and so many years of studying kids on social networks".
I think she hit on one thesis that makes for good "linkbaity" newspaper articles and now she is milking it. In other words, it is marketing, not research.
Since I am not researching the subject, I really don't want to bother her. But since that thesis has been around for quite a while now, surely she has published some papers somewhere?
It is just that I remember the original "article", which was just a blog entry (was it mnths ago, or years already?). But the press loved it and eventually what just was some musings in a blog became "scientific research" in the media - that is what I mean by linkbaity, it is just the kind of think newspapers love to write about. That is not Boyd's fault of course - it's just that after all that time, I would have expected to really see the blog article be turned into something more solid.
If she can make a living that way, also I don't have anything against it. I just felt it lacked substance for Hacker News.
Edit: these are her papers http://www.danah.org/papers/ - I tried one that sounded like it might contain numbers, but I didn't find many. Some words on methodology, though (for Friendster, but still). Anyway, her kind of research just is not my taste (too much talking).
I think she hit on one thesis that makes for good "linkbaity" newspaper articles and now she is milking it. In other words, it is marketing, not research.