Of course, the main reason that sort of impression would gain currency is because they've been so inept to date. If they'd jumped on social media earlier in the game, they would have looked ahead of the curve, the old guys who are still able to navigate the modern world. Some older artists have done that successfully, but it's much too late for U2 to get on board, especially after events like the cringey Apple launch or this Salesforce thing that really does look terribly corporate even if you think it could prove beneficial.
You look at someone like Neil Finn, who's been on Twitter for years and posts a sometimes baffling stream of thought; he's obviously an old guy who barely gets social media but he's having fun with it and it's just enhanced his status as the friendly grandfather and elder statesman of Aussie and Kiwi music. U2 doing the same is unimaginable. But then Neil is just recording and touring whatever the hell he likes because he's passionate about music and is genuinely delighted thousands of people still want to show up every night, while U2 have not yet realised that the more you try to chase and pin down this elusive "relevance", the less relevant you are likely to be.
But I'll forgive almost anything if they create an app where you can vote on parts of the setlist, include some exciting rarities, and actually follow through on it.
Thing is, U2 aren't old. They're in their mid-50s. It's not like they're 90. Surely they know how to use twitter and facebook. They just don't want to. It's funny how you mention how they look terribly corporate. I don't think it's just appearance: I think they are. Bono always talks proudly (why, FFS?) about how U2 are a corporation. Well, like all corporations, U2 Inc. has swallowed the people that make it move. I'm sure that Bono would enjoy twitter and be endlessly entertaining and interesting if he allowed himself to be himself, but U2 Corp. won't allow for that. Everything they do (or don't do) has to be mediated by their corporate goals, obligations, ties, and so on. They're too big a business entity to function successfully as artists.
It's not like they do things in secret like Boards of Canada - they want to be in our faces. But rather than communicate in a human way, it's done in a corporate way. In the ways that matter they're as faceless as any other brand. It contradicts the heart of their music.
If social media and the internet was around in the 80s and 90s U2 would have used it better than anyone else.
Some interesting points and probably one of your better posts, but in the end...I think Bono - and for that matter all of them - are just too busy. When you're really living, the internet and social media are kindof a boring chore. Someone else's job, etc.
Does any of this really matter?
Nope and that's the funny part about it. People like to pretend they are above the corporate side of U2. It's embarrassing for them and for some reason when things like this, that in all liklihood are a necessity when you're as big an organization as U2 is, come up, people like to preach corproate sellouts and fuel that narrative. There's nothing wrong with what they do but certain fans would like you to think there is. The same fans that will bitch about them having corporate spnsorship to fuel the 360 tour yet jump on interference following a show they attended to say how incredible it was, not taken a single second to think how the whole thing was possibly funded.
People acting like facebook and twitter are the be all end all.