3 ms·

>There are no impactful consequences for not using Facebook Yes there are. I decided not to use facebook years ago. I also don't use any of their other service

>There are no impactful consequences for not using Facebook Yes there are. I decided not to use facebook years ago. I also don't use any of their other services. Consequences range from being an outsider socially to being outright excluded from university/school/work events, because they're organized solely on Facebook and nobody told you. Everybody just assumes you're on there. When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You might be able to do that when a network is reasonably small. When a third of the world population is on there, that doesn't work anymore. The thesis you're defending is wrong.

root_axis 8y ago
Sorry but Facebook is not a social necessity, period. > When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You're constructing an image of reality that isn't correct in order to support your position. If you encounter a gathering of your peers and someone says, "hey, you on Facebook?" and you say "no, I don't really use Facebook" in reality, the conversation just moves forward with a discussion of a different communication medium like SMS or snapchat or twitter or e-mail or whatever. The suggestion that lacking a Facebook is social suicide is obviously wrong. Perhaps in your particular friend group people only communicate through Facebook, but that is definitely not typical and it still doesn't mean you need Facebook, it means that you find the Facebook network convenient for communicating with a particular group of people. Participating in a group-chat is not a necessity. What if your entire friend group communicates on Discord, does that mean you need discord? Obviously you don't need it, you just find it convenient. If you refuse to use Facebook and none of your friends care to adjust their habits to communicate with you that really has nothing to do with Facebook and certainly doesn't imply that Facebook is now a social need. > The thesis you're defending is wrong. My thesis is just common sense. The idea that Facebook is a necessity is laughably absurd.
- gfodor 8y ago
  The overarching point is arguable even if you don't think Facebook is necessary -- this is subjective and is why I used the term "blurring" and not "blurred." It's certainly the case that platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide examples of what could be on track, if they are not currently, towards becoming privately owned, unregulated, Internet-based, global scale communication networks that anchor our daily lives. Even if those two platforms die off before they reach the tipping point where most would agree membership on the platforms are necessary to operate in society, we should still realize this is a potential eventuality. If you disagree with the core point of this potential outcome, then I'd be interested in the argument, but it certainly seems possible (and I'd argue, likely) that Facebook or a site like Facebook could quickly evolve into something that you need to be connected on to conduct business, interface with the government, get a job, get into school, or in general be connected to society in a way that is not making you "sub human" in a future where the whole world is continually connected via the Internet at all times.

root_axis 8y ago

Sorry but Facebook is not a social necessity, period. > When you enter a new peer group of 20+ people you can't just tell them to completely mix up their habits because you happen to not like what they're doing. You're constructing an image of reality that isn't correct in order to support your position. If you encounter a gathering of your peers and someone says, "hey, you on Facebook?" and you say "no, I don't really use Facebook" in reality, the conversation just moves forward with a discussion of a different communication medium like SMS or snapchat or twitter or e-mail or whatever. The suggestion that lacking a Facebook is social suicide is obviously wrong. Perhaps in your particular friend group people only communicate through Facebook, but that is definitely not typical and it still doesn't mean you need Facebook, it means that you find the Facebook network convenient for communicating with a particular group of people. Participating in a group-chat is not a necessity. What if your entire friend group communicates on Discord, does that mean you need discord? Obviously you don't need it, you just find it convenient. If you refuse to use Facebook and none of your friends care to adjust their habits to communicate with you that really has nothing to do with Facebook and certainly doesn't imply that Facebook is now a social need. > The thesis you're defending is wrong. My thesis is just common sense. The idea that Facebook is a necessity is laughably absurd.

gfodor 8y ago
The overarching point is arguable even if you don't think Facebook is necessary -- this is subjective and is why I used the term "blurring" and not "blurred." It's certainly the case that platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide examples of what could be on track, if they are not currently, towards becoming privately owned, unregulated, Internet-based, global scale communication networks that anchor our daily lives. Even if those two platforms die off before they reach the tipping point where most would agree membership on the platforms are necessary to operate in society, we should still realize this is a potential eventuality. If you disagree with the core point of this potential outcome, then I'd be interested in the argument, but it certainly seems possible (and I'd argue, likely) that Facebook or a site like Facebook could quickly evolve into something that you need to be connected on to conduct business, interface with the government, get a job, get into school, or in general be connected to society in a way that is not making you "sub human" in a future where the whole world is continually connected via the Internet at all times.