No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.
And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.
I've refused to be blackmailed into Facebook use by my family, so there's zero chance a friend or associate will get away with it. If people can't be arsed to email me about something they consider significant, I don't have time for them either.
FOMO is a condition that happens in your head, as is how you let your peers treat you. It is within your power to deal with it.
[1] I don't discount that informal bonding, chit-chat, etc.; it is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, group formation, etc. I prefer the in-person sort, and for virtual, there's a whole internet out there that is not FB.
I think you might mean _fear_ of being left out...friends will find other ways to contact you.
Further email doesn't force you to participate in any particular service at all because it is a federated service.
Assuming that someone should get a facebook to talk to you is like assuming someone should switch to sprint to call you.
Imagine how moronic the world would be if all the different phone networks were disconnected from one another.
I agree it is suboptimal, and whether or not it is worth the tradeoff is an individual decision, but that is the world we live in.
The group level is where most of the rubber meets the road here.
Answering email is really a pretty normal expectation.
If you ask for their email and they offer to friend you, and you decline, should they assume you don't want to be in the loop for things?
Your arguments for email as a platform equally apply to facebook. Yeah email is decentralized and oldsr, but that stuff doesn't matter to regular people who want the easiest tool for the job.
If they're hard to reach it's because they chose to, not because you're using the wrong comm channel :)
Generally back when I used facebook the cloests friends I had had 0 interaction on facebook and we usually just direct message through messenger or imessage.
Fscebook at that time was just for maintaining those “outlier” relationships until I realized its better to have closer bonds with fewer people.
Also a group that "just decides" outliers are not worth the hassle, are not friends. They seriously are not. Friend groups are pretty much defined as the sort of groups that do not do this. Except in cases of grave social misconduct, often destroying the "group" or "friend" aspect in the process.
They are a group, yes. And indeed, some groups will sometimes just decide to ostracise outliers if it conflicts with the group identity. Nothing inherently wrong with that, btw, this can be very useful for certain types of group. As long as it doesn't become the main type of group you identify with. Because then, as we see from all the people making excuses all over this thread, not adhering to certain rules of the group-identity becomes an existential fear of epic proportions, because it touches upon a very fundamental behavioural aspect of our biology--fear of being cast out of the tribe (which used to mean suffering followed by near-certain death).
Facebook is currently exploiting this behavioural trigger (together with an addictive cocktail of other triggers) in a quarter of the world's population.
>No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.
My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.
Sure, [good|strong|old|pick your adjective] friends will contact you regardless of your facebook involvement.
But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.
And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?
If I live on a mountain, 1,000 miles from everyone, people--even my friends--don't invite me to their parties because they don't think I'm available. I have isolated myself, and people take social cues from that. People also take clues from social isolation.
I'm reminded of when I set my mother up for email. She really didn't think she needed it or would want it, "Getting a stamp just isn't that hard." But the fact of the matter is that the lower friction method of communication enabled her to be in contact with many, many more people. Facebook is even lower friction than that.
"Those aren't your friends" ignores too many realities of life.
Texting is just as easy as facebook messaging. Or they can use discord, slack, etc etc. facebook isn't the only way to contact someone that is easy.
> But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.
Maybe this is because I grew an introvert, but I can deal with being by myself as well as most of my friends. Going to events, etc isn't a must have. It's something that you can do if you want too. If I want to go hang out, then I will contact people. I will make it easy for them to say yes/no/no response. But I don't have to be apart of every group meeting, or every little discussion.
Trade that off if you like, not not everyone does.
Facebook vs having acquaintances?
It's like smoking in the 80s, with the ostracism turned up to 11.
The good news being, what seemed impossible then, we slowly seem to be winning the tide against smoking. Speaking as a (currently..) ex-smoker. If you remember we used to be allowed to smoke in restaurants (I can hardly believe it myself, sometimes), how the consensus felt back then, there is hope :)
Anyone who can't move their finger an inch to click on a different ubiquitous app to contact you isn't your friend regardless of what you think.
And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't. Your ability to judge from several paragraphs of my writing and nothing more is pretty impressive.
The things I missed weren't really, my friends exactly, but rather broad groups with common interests.
If one doesn't hang out where everyone else does, you can't expect people to invite you when they look at each other and say, "Let's go somewhere."
Sending an email really does imply moving your finger an inch to use a different app.
Read it again. He's not actually saying that.
Buddy I'm pretty sure it is your inability to judge just how many of your friends would still take the effort to reach out to you if you were to quit being a FB user, given any of the good reasons to do so.
Just like you might fear they won't be your friends or you won't be having a good time if you don't drink with them. That fear is most probably not real. And if it does turn out to be true, in the case if alcohol you probably dodged a bullet. And in the case of FB use ... well it's your call.
It's not even addictive.
This is like saying you taught your mother to enjoy mint-flavoured soda water ("a glass of water is just as good for thirst") ... as a way to defend having to drink alcohol to feel accepted by your friends.
Oh and in a lot of cases, the fear is not even real, you just believe you need FB. Your friends might just surprise you yet.
The part where you get left out is when someone from your squad sees a cool event and decides to go. They're going regardless of who else is going, but it would be nice to have some friends there.
So they post in the squad group chat "Hey I'm going to this event, anyone in?" aaaaand that's about it as far as organization goes. If you're in you're in, if you're not, that's fine too.
Not every event warrants personally inviting everyone you'd like to see there. Personally inviting people is for small primarily gatherings, not for more casual larger stuff.
casual isn't friendship. My friends and I, hang out because we enjoy each others company and like to do things together. Not to invite people because we are lonely.
Plus, I don't mind being "left out" or "missing something". As I get older, it's just not worth the hassle
Why not? People are busy. They have jobs and partners and pets and sometimes kids. All of that takes time and attention.
These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is. And trying to get together face-to-face? LoL, it can take months to align our schedules.
And when it comes to larger stuff. Sometimes you just wanna organize a birthday party or something for everyone, you know? If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?
Acquaintances or good acquaintances.
I think this boils down to each person's definition of friends and friendship along with the amount of social interaction each person needs.
I need very little social interaction, so I tend to keep close friends and not much else. I know others who always like to be around someone. They don't care much who it is, and they generally have looser terms for friendship.
Also, face-to-face isn't required. Hop on discord or skype, or just send them a text message. If they are a close friend and you enjoy their company, you should try to keep the lines of communication open.
So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.
> I need very little social interaction
Me too. Which is why I tend to keep to myself, and throw a huge rager for as many people as I can get to show up a couple times per year.
Maybe I don't really have any close friends anymore, the definition gets muddy when most everyone you used to consider a close friend is now a 12 hour flight away and you never really get to see them anymore.
But my point is that when I'm organizing a party, I want everyone. Acquaintances and close friends alike. It feels weird that just because I'm organizing a larger event, that should automatically make everyone I invite a not-friend. Usually I'd like a mix.
Sorry, I took the inverted view of this. If you are inviting me, most likely I am an acquaintance.
I don't throw parties, but I do like to hang out, so generally I just invite friends over. Just friends. When I do throw a party, it's mostly for someone else and so is definitely mostly acquaintances.
> Maybe I don't really have any close friends anymore, the definition gets muddy when most everyone you used to consider a close friend is now a 12 hour flight away and you never really get to see them anymore.
Don't take this the wrong way, but this is depressing. Some of my good friends I have actually never seen in real life. Distance doesn't mean you can't be friends. But I do make a point to talk with them once a week (we game together) unless someone is gone on a vacation or something like that. I remember a time when I didn't have any real friends and it put me adrift. I would highly recommend that you try and give them a call, or shoot them a text.
I know, I too have some close friends that I only saw in person many years after we became friends. We do have an IRC channel for a lot of these friends, but the 9 hour time difference seems to really throw a wrench into things.
Especially now that people have gotten lives. They close the computer after work (which is when I start waking up) and go do stuff with their partners. When they're online and chattering away, is most often when I'm asleep.
So yeah distance doesn't matter at all in my experience, but timezone difference matters a lot.
That said, these are not friends I would invite to a huge party anyway because they're too far to make it. We hang out when we're on the same continent.
> So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.
> But my point is that when I'm organizing a party, I want everyone. Acquaintances and close friends alike. It feels weird that just because I'm organizing a larger event, that should automatically make everyone I invite a not-friend.
I'm really confused now, do you invite your friends that are not FB users, or not?
Or do you claim that you have zero friends that are not FB users?
Do you require all your friends to be on FB? What about the ones who quit, do they just drop off your radar or something?
Don't let that stop you from telling others how to socialize correctly!
Shouldn't we encourage others to have deeper, more meaningful relationships?
Well, at least now you have your FB to collectively like and share away your sorrows. I'm sure you feel less sad while you're on it.
> If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?
If you do not invite me to this party just because I don't use FB? What do you think yourself? Would you call yourself my friend?
I mean if you forget, ok. But if you keep forgetting, yes that is how friendships wither and die. This is a natural thing. If it feels like a painful idea to lose someone's friendship that way, watering it is really one of the easiest things to do. If instead it feels like it is a hard thing to do, then ask yourself and consider what you really fear losing? (probably something other than friendship--not necessarily bad)
You can of course use FB to connect with friends. But, like alcohol, you cannot justify lack of FB to justify not connecting with your friends.
And the buck doesn't stop at FB or its developers, now you are forcing other people start using, too.
Um, so? He still wanted to go that party.
... like there aren't any communication alternatives that don't take days, just as speedy and convenient, but less addictive.
Maybe sometimes I want to go see acquintances though, not just people who are already good friends and will remember to invite me via my preferred way of communication?
It takes a very particular size of group for that to happen. If you hang out with 4-5 people you would know if you "forgot" to invite someone. If it's much more than that, that is really a lot of people who it didn't occur to whether they wanted to see Kyle there or not.
But you should really ask Kyle, about feeling left out and the quality of his friendships.
> 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook
Except that is not why you are on FB while trying to defend your behaviour towards Kyle, that's only the story an alcoholic tells to himself when he's meeting his friends at the corner pub.
If FB usage was just a "party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing", we would not be having this discussion.
Let alone a "very useful" one, which would obviously allow to invite people transparently and easily via multiple channels of communication. FB does the exact opposite of this[0]. Now listen to yourself defending this!! Is that really your true opinion of this "organising app" speaking, or is it your dopamine-addiction, group identity and fear of ostracism?
[0] Try using FB links sent through other comm for a bit with a logged out, cookies cleared browser. Like, a day or two.
It is. You have the power to choose what you want to be a part of. And these groups have more members than yourself - people who you can ask to help you stay up to date on meetings and such.
Yes, I could ask someone to forward me the notices, and activities, but how do you propose I participate in the discussions of what to do?
When the voting via facebook poll happens, how do you propose I make my voice heard.
Now, you could argue that facebook isn't worth it. (And that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.) But that is a different position than, "It's easy to make these things work without facebook."
Yes, we could "write someone a letter in the mail instead" or "ask a friend about the events on facebook" but that would defeat the point for the vast majority of us that aren't interested in spending hours managing our social contacts and calendars. You're not really giving solutions when you suggest things like that.
I don't spend hours managing my social contacts and calendars and I still feel connected with my family and my friends without Facebook.
I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
Although I hate, hate, hate certain parts of it, there is absolutely zero doubt that it has been beneficial on balance.
I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.
"It is legal to hunt. There's nothing stopping you from going into the woods, killing a deer, and salting its meat other than your own dependency on the conveniences of the modern era."
I mean, at some point, we have to accept that the world is becoming a lot easier to live in.
I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked. I genuinely believe people that disagree are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.
Well, a grocery store isn't really harmful in the way Facebook is. Grocery stores aren't tracking you in every other store you go to and selling that information to the highest bidder, they aren't tracking when you're asleep and awake and everything you use on your phone and they aren't designed to keep you addicted and in the store for as many of your waking hours as possible. You could point out that they might do things like put sugary foods in prominent places but you can always exercise self control and go to the healthier choice - but there's no equivalent Facebook "lite:. Even if grocery stores were all of these things it'd be a lot more reasonable to suggest the farmer's market before hunting. Facebook is demonstrably harmful, grocery stores are not.
>I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked.
I'm 25 years old, and I definitely lived through and remember a lot of time when the internet was not ubiquitous and calling your friends up was the best way to reach them (I remember the rise of texting, too). It really wasn't bad at all.
>Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.
I don't use Facebook today and I still have friends around the world. Hell, in two weeks I'm flying out to Tokyo and crashing on a friend's couch for two weeks and seeing a concert - and we managed to arrange that without Facebook.
Also, I keep seeing the, "Facebook isn't worth the tradeoff" argument coming up. That may be true, but again, that is a different claim than, "It is easy to live without it."
re: Your note below that you are suggesting others give it a try:
I did that for years. I counted on getting invites via text message or email. I organized things myself without it. I really did give it a go. I still missed out on way more than I wanted to.
I finally joined facebook about six months ago. I'm very careful about what I share, both with other facebook users and the company itself.
I hate many things about facebook. But what I can't deny is that I am much more connected with many more people than I was before. There is no comparison.
... Except it didn't go like that at all, a zillion other options came along, pagers, mobile phones + texting, email, a whole bunch of instant messaging networks, all of which worked increasingly well for the problems your FB use is supposedly uniquely solving, yet none of was addictive like FB use, a machine learning algorithm targeting flaws in the human psyche / attention-mechanism / dopamine-treadmill to keep them "engaged" and instilling the fear of ostracism if they ever dare to leave.
You can defend convenient channels of communication, but you can't defend the package FB wraps it in.
Sir_Cmpwn said,
> I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
Scarily so.
In addition, unlike supermarkets, FB use is actually addictive, it is very much designed to be that way. This is not a point of discussion any more.
For instance, your era with the nostalgia glasses, sure it sucked (depending where you lived I guess). But FB use was not the thing that changed it. That was mobile phones, and if you lived in that era you know this very well. That's a couple of decades of technology you're skipping over to justify your FB use.
Get real: people waste a lot more time on 'tech' than they save, compared to doing without. The goal of most of those 'techs' is to take up as much of your time as possible, that's the foundation of their business.
It's not a clear net positive just because of those conveniences, and there are no current "solutions" to give as everything you list is far more relevant to network effects than technical feature set. (e.g. in the past, using Facebook made you an outlier, why not just use email lists/myspace/phone calls/etc like everyone else?) A path to an alternative would be through Facebook collapsing (unlikely on their own), another social media site out-marketing Facebook, or establishing your own small networking effect under different assumptions.
Volunteer to help with those alternative means.
Those are real tradeoffs that many groups aren't willing to accept, regardless of how willing a single person is to shoulder the burden.
Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication
And the fact is that most people prefer it.