3 ms·

But .. the argument that this includes everyone is provably wrong. The GP doesn't have FB. I don't. Any social circles including him or me have to live with the

But .. the argument that this includes everyone is provably wrong. The GP doesn't have FB. I don't. Any social circles including him or me have to live with the fact that yes - you might have to use something different to contact us. If you have only 1 or 2 of those in your network, isn't the big 'one IM service to rule them all' idea dead? If you already are at a point where it's "FB for most, except for mail/whatever for X", is it a big step to "everyone chooses what to use again"? The overhead is already there, no? All I can say is: This works fine for me. I have neither FB nor WhatsApp (I stopped using the former a long time ago and never joined the latter). People can reach me just fine and ~probably~ get a faster response from me anyway. I really don't understand this whole concept. "Overhead" to contact someone? Let's be real here: Either you care about contacting someone or you don't. If you don't, then I'd just not name them a 'Friend'. If you do, the mental exercise to open a different app (like - mail) shouldn't even be worth mentioning?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
superuser2 11y ago
Parent asked whether anyone actually uses Facebook as their sole communication medium. I'm saying yes, because there's little reason to bother with anything else when everyone has Facebook (and can already find each other on it). And for the most part that's true, in my experience. I've met exactly two people who don't have Facebook; neither of them want to be contacted electronically at all. Never met someone in a peer group who wanted to IM but was morally opposed to Facebook in particular. > Either you care about contacting someone or you don't. Cuts both ways. If Facebook is someone's primary communication system and you refuse to use it, then you don't particularly care about contacting them either. >"Overhead" to contact someone? Most groups of friends I'm aware of have running group chats. In an effort to be inclusive of people with Androids, many switched from iMessage to Facebook. But if you refused to use Facebook and an event was planned that way, yes, someone would have to make the effort to reach out to you individually. Overhead. Even if they really like you despite your self-righteous inconveniencing of everyone else, it's not obvious whose responsibility it should be to bridge between Facebook and your smoke signals, and they're likely to forget sometimes.
- darklajid 11y ago
  > self-righteous inconveniencing of everyone else > between Facebook and your smoke signals Whoa there. I'd say that was both a bit over the top, no? I'll end my participation in this thread with this: Obviously anyone/everyone can choose to use FB - I never tried to talk a single person out of using it. I consider it utterly useless for me, personally, and am so far unconvinced by any 'you have to use it or miss out' arguments and certainly don't buy the 'you are inconveniencing your peers' line of thought.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

superuser2 11y ago

Parent asked whether anyone actually uses Facebook as their sole communication medium. I'm saying yes, because there's little reason to bother with anything else when everyone has Facebook (and can already find each other on it). And for the most part that's true, in my experience. I've met exactly two people who don't have Facebook; neither of them want to be contacted electronically at all. Never met someone in a peer group who wanted to IM but was morally opposed to Facebook in particular. > Either you care about contacting someone or you don't. Cuts both ways. If Facebook is someone's primary communication system and you refuse to use it, then you don't particularly care about contacting them either. >"Overhead" to contact someone? Most groups of friends I'm aware of have running group chats. In an effort to be inclusive of people with Androids, many switched from iMessage to Facebook. But if you refused to use Facebook and an event was planned that way, yes, someone would have to make the effort to reach out to you individually. Overhead. Even if they really like you despite your self-righteous inconveniencing of everyone else, it's not obvious whose responsibility it should be to bridge between Facebook and your smoke signals, and they're likely to forget sometimes.

darklajid 11y ago
> self-righteous inconveniencing of everyone else > between Facebook and your smoke signals Whoa there. I'd say that was both a bit over the top, no? I'll end my participation in this thread with this: Obviously anyone/everyone can choose to use FB - I never tried to talk a single person out of using it. I consider it utterly useless for me, personally, and am so far unconvinced by any 'you have to use it or miss out' arguments and certainly don't buy the 'you are inconveniencing your peers' line of thought.