AO3

• The theory is wrong to suggest that non-verbal cues are entirely missing from CMC. They are different rather than absent. Walther and Tidwell point out that people in online interactions use other cues, such as style and timing of their messages. For instance, taking time to reply to a social network status update is often interpretated as a more intimate act than an immediate response. Acrostics (such as LOL) and emoticons are used as effective substitutes for facial expressions and tone of voice in FtF interactions. This shows that CMC interactions can be just as personal as FtF ones. 
• The hyperpersonal model predicts that self-disclosure in CMC relationships is sometimes hyper-honest or hyper-dishonest. Whitty and Joinson provide evidence to support this. For example, questions asked in online discussions tend to be very direct, probing and intimate. 

  This is quite different from FtF conversations, which are often hedged with 'small-talk'. Responses likewise are very direct and to the point.  
• Findings like these support a central assertion of the model, which is that the way we self-disclose in CMC relationships is designed to present ourselves in an exaggerated positive light which aids relationship formation. 
• Self-disclosure online is not a blanket phenomenon. It's extent and depth depend very much on the type of CMC being used. In the case of social networking sites, people interacting with each other generally have relationships in the offline world. People self-disclose more in their Facebook status updates than they are willing to in completing an e-commerce webform, when they are quite reluctant to disclose information, they consider to be private (Paine et al. 2006). 
• An interesting case is online dating, an unusual example of CMC with complete strangers. Self-disclosure is reduced because both communicators anticipate future meetings FtF in the offline world, a consideration that generally doesn't exist in chatrooms and on gaming sites. ​ 

  Any theory that approaches CMC as a single concept neglects it's richness and variety and is therefore unlikely to be a completely valid explanation.