They didn't get an invite because they don't stay in communication with people, not because they don't have a Facebook!!!
I'm not really sure why they'd expect to hear directly from the mom. When a person dies, the information is spread like a web, the next-of-kin very rarely informs everyone directly. Usually they inform their close circle and the close circle of the deceased. Then those people spread the word. 100% of the time I've been informed of a death it was by someone in my close circle, not the next-of-kin. Since the author doesn't keep communication with their "friends," they got overlooked. That's very sad and shitty, but it doesn't have to do with Facebook.
Maybe because they wanted to see their friend at said event?
Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't have the current contact info for their friends and would like so still see them but otherwise can't setup a meeting with them?
The article doesn't make all of the facts plain, so it's pointless to speculate the full details.
I think that’s a good point, well stated, and your dismissal is rude and without depth. Owning a phone doesn’t necessitate giving something like Facebook access to your whole life. When a means of communication becomes a utility (as you’re describing), it has responsibilities and regulations.
As of 2015, this blog was on the nose.
Shouldn't it also be the case that, if you're the one not on a widespread platform that - clearly - a lot of people are using to communicate, it's on you to make the effort to reach out?
I actually think the opposite of your claim - expecting a family who's member has committed suicide to have to actively reach out to this one person is rude and without depth. Expecting any kind of personalised treatment whilst alienating yourself is similar, but that one example sums it up for me.