No offense, but in my view your friend was expressing a viewpoint that is not only short-sighted and obtuse (to put it mildly!), but ~ by the sound of it ~ just plain lazy. In fact, I might even say (based strictly on what you wrote) that her throw-away conclusion that social media is, in sum, “not worth the effort” comes close to crossing (or, at least, “bumping into”…) a number of ethical lines, since I do not believe that such a sweeping conclusion could possibly be supported by any kind of rigorous, formal (or even “back-of-the-envelope”) cost-benefit analysis on behalf of the client, the insurance company. (Indeed, how could it—as so aptly highlighted by your “soccer pix on Facebook” hypothetical, in which ten minutes spent on the Internet resulted in highly relevant, perhaps case-critical, evidence?)

The admissibility point is slightly more substantial. However, while I am unsure how the case law will ultimately unfold, we have already seen several cases reported in the trade and popular press (let alone circulated and recirculated to the nth degree on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter), in which material and, in some cases, dispositive evidence that was developed and/or discovered via social media was admitted with little or no ado over sourcing, attribution, etc.

In short (and again, in my opinion only), you’re right; she was wrong; end of story!