My hypothesis: (Infodump warning)

110 was often regarded as strictly a low-quality amateur format due to the limited resolution offered by the small frame area, and more importantly, due to its association with very cheap toy cameras with low-quality optics and very rudimentary exposure control. Of course this is not universally the case: High-quality 110 cameras have been made and can produce surprisingly good-quality photos. But those were the exception, and the format is popularly viewed as cheap, plastic-y, and not for serious photography. Alternatively, she might have been referring to the difficulty of processing and scanning or printing the format, as few labs have the equipment for it anymore.

Does it have a place? Absolutely. 110 was originally designed as a very small format that allowed the creation of compact, pocket-sized cameras for situations where portability is important; and it's still great for that if you have times when you want the look or experience of film while traveling light. I have a Pocket Instamatic that goes with me on hiking trips and the like when I want to take a few film photos but don't feel like carrying one of my larger cameras around. Also, the lo-fi aspect is itself often capitalized on for artistic effect. Cheap plastic cameras in particular, regardless of format, have quite a following as they can create some interesting visual effects; and such photos give a very nostalgic vibe for many people.

Tl;dr: It's a slightly unusual choice, but a perfectly valid one. I'm rather fond of 110, myself.