3 ms·

Just because you've never experienced doesn't mean it's real. I have experienced it.

true_religion 10y ago
Well, it's plausible, but the most natural case is that acquaintances use Facebook as a low-touch way of staying in contact. I admit if I wanted to be friendly acquaintances with people, then Facebook is probably the best way to do so. However, close friends share information without using Facebook. I call my close friends on their birthdays. My acquaintances, I'll +1 the long thread of "happy birthday" messages on facebook, just like everyone else. tl;dr: Facebook is unnecessary but useful.
mbrameld 10y ago
That isn't a result of Facebook, that's a result of inconsiderate friends. There are a couple friends in my group that aren't on Facebook, so we text them.
- tekklloneer 10y ago
  If all of my friends (coworkers, work friends, casual acquaintances) are using Facebook for events, and I'm the one insisting they contact me directly, then I feel like I'm being the inconsiderate one.
  - __abc 10y ago
    Really? I wouldn't think this of a friend not on a particular social website or if I myself was the one on a particular social website. I guess I'm old (mid thirties) and rely so heavily on text et al
    - wutbrodo 10y ago
      A reasonable analogy would be someone who didn't accept texts and insisted on party invitations (and communicating) through post or in-person visits. It's easy to say "Well a real friend would make the time to drop by", and that's perhaps a consistent definition of "real friend". But the fact remains that there's a whole host of pleasant social interactions (many of which others would define as "real friends") that you'd miss out on if you only relied on more inefficient communications technologies. I'm not a heavy Facebook user, and I've considered deleting it multiple times, but each time I couldn't convince myself that there was any advantage to doing so over just using it as an inbox. Particularly with things like the News Feed Eradicator Chrome extension, I can basically pretend that all the irritating parts of Facebook don't exist when I check my messages and events. Having a single place where all the members of a group can see and share information on their own schedules is infinitely more convenient than trying to hack together the same thing over multiple bilateral communication channels (i.e texting/calling). Sure it would be better if it was federated, but given that there is no such widely-used solution, it's not hard to understand how people refusing to participate in FB groups can be fairly perceived as being the inconsiderate one (or else being left out altogether).
  - dhimes 10y ago
    Agree. My son went through this. A HS sailing team arranged a party on Facebook. My son isn't on Facebook and was left out. Bad? Yes. Should the team not have done that? Sure. Should the coaches have intervened (if they even knew)? Of course. But it still happened. Damage done.
- awesomerobot 10y ago
  What if they didn't have a phone? would you take the time to write them letters? wouldn't your interactions be much different? That's the point. At what level of saturation does the person opting-out of a communication medium become the more difficult one? The majority of people in the US have a social media account.

Well, it's plausible, but the most natural case is that acquaintances use Facebook as a low-touch way of staying in contact. I admit if I wanted to be friendly acquaintances with people, then Facebook is probably the best way to do so. However, close friends share information without using Facebook. I call my close friends on their birthdays. My acquaintances, I'll +1 the long thread of "happy birthday" messages on facebook, just like everyone else. tl;dr: Facebook is unnecessary but useful.

mbrameld 10y ago

That isn't a result of Facebook, that's a result of inconsiderate friends. There are a couple friends in my group that aren't on Facebook, so we text them.

tekklloneer 10y ago
If all of my friends (coworkers, work friends, casual acquaintances) are using Facebook for events, and I'm the one insisting they contact me directly, then I feel like I'm being the inconsiderate one.
- __abc 10y ago
  Really? I wouldn't think this of a friend not on a particular social website or if I myself was the one on a particular social website. I guess I'm old (mid thirties) and rely so heavily on text et al
  - wutbrodo 10y ago
    A reasonable analogy would be someone who didn't accept texts and insisted on party invitations (and communicating) through post or in-person visits. It's easy to say "Well a real friend would make the time to drop by", and that's perhaps a consistent definition of "real friend". But the fact remains that there's a whole host of pleasant social interactions (many of which others would define as "real friends") that you'd miss out on if you only relied on more inefficient communications technologies. I'm not a heavy Facebook user, and I've considered deleting it multiple times, but each time I couldn't convince myself that there was any advantage to doing so over just using it as an inbox. Particularly with things like the News Feed Eradicator Chrome extension, I can basically pretend that all the irritating parts of Facebook don't exist when I check my messages and events. Having a single place where all the members of a group can see and share information on their own schedules is infinitely more convenient than trying to hack together the same thing over multiple bilateral communication channels (i.e texting/calling). Sure it would be better if it was federated, but given that there is no such widely-used solution, it's not hard to understand how people refusing to participate in FB groups can be fairly perceived as being the inconsiderate one (or else being left out altogether).
- dhimes 10y ago
  Agree. My son went through this. A HS sailing team arranged a party on Facebook. My son isn't on Facebook and was left out. Bad? Yes. Should the team not have done that? Sure. Should the coaches have intervened (if they even knew)? Of course. But it still happened. Damage done.
awesomerobot 10y ago
What if they didn't have a phone? would you take the time to write them letters? wouldn't your interactions be much different? That's the point. At what level of saturation does the person opting-out of a communication medium become the more difficult one? The majority of people in the US have a social media account.