3 ms·
Your last two sentences don't pass the smell test. There's even graceful degradation in your set of solutions: 1. You drop FB. Now you just look on your spous
by jancsika 4y ago
Your last two sentences don't pass the smell test.
There's even graceful degradation in your set of solutions:
1. You drop FB. Now you just look on your spouse's Facebook when necessary, and your family learns to tell your spouse to show you stuff on FB. Annoying? Yes. Unworkable? No.
2. Your entire immediate family drops Facebook. At least one (if not all of you) can still communicate with the rest over text. And the rest of your family knows how to send a photo over text on an Iphone. Annoying to extended fam? Maybe. Unworkable? Definitely not. (In fact, I'd be willing to bet that it cuts out extended family spam and makes those moments of connection more meaningful.)
3. You attempt a quixotic adventure to switching your entire extended family over to some half-baked decentralized alternative to Facebook that will be usable in forever minus a day. Impossible? Yes. So choose #1 or #2 above.
- ColinWright 4y agoI have 10 to 15 family members in their 80s and 90s who use FB. A group has been set up for them, and they post photos and comments, and they chat with each other using Messenger. These are people who don't know of and honestly don't care about the difference between the internet and the web, and to them, "The Internet" simply is Facebook. Using the tech is already hard for them. Some are partially sighted, some have mobility issues, some have arthritis, all can easily use FB to stay in touch. And they don't use anything else. It's just not an option to try to get them to change, it really isn't. Please, please do me the courtesy of accepting that I've done the analysis. Many times. It's simply not a reasonable objective. And no, I won't squat on someone else's FB account so I can stay in touch.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]