You know what? A bit of an obstacle for the organizers and slightly more hassle for me (for example: I'll have to mail one of the participants so that he mails me the pictures shared on WhatsApp).
Else than that? A complete no-brainer for all involved.
I totally get why those tools are used to help organize such an event. They totally got why I refuse to come close to anything Facebook with a vengeance and were happy to work around it.
As an added bonus I was the only one in the group who shut the phone off on Sunday evening and didn't touch it again until the retreat finished the following Friday.
If people really believe that I'm an antisocial hermit, which cannot be trusted? Well, fuck them very much!
If so, then it's quite apparent ex-facto why they want to move to Facebook - if people are not willing to go through that hoop to join in, then why would they want them?
I'm really rather glad that we quite obviously don't inhibit the same world.
To be clear here, I tried to do this, and all it earned me was ostracism. It is not a virtuous act at all, despite what some may like to give you the impression of.
In Finland, Internet access is considered to be a human right, and it's not feasible to do a lot of things otherwise, such as banking errands. Considering Facebook == the Internet to many people, I don't see why the same rules can't apply there.
Can Facebook be voted into a law where it is considered to be a human right? It's possible, but before that ever happens chases are much bigger that scientology becomes official religion and everyone will mutate to look like Moomins.
You're moving the discussion from
"You must sign on to Facebook to participate in society" to
"[In Finland] internet usage is considered a human right"
By essentially changing your argument and implying something which I never said and which has nothing to do with what I said you invalidate your argument.
And that "neat trick" (which is pretty transparent, alas) makes you intellectually dishonest.
I think we can close the discussion here. Thanks for playing.
You can stay away from Facebook and then feel really smug ten years from now when it eventually collapses. But until then, you'd have missed out on a lot of important things. The only winning move is to realize that you do not have a choice, and that the terms of service are just an illusion.
For the record, I think Facebook's existence is regrettable. But the notion that you have any ability, choice, freedom, right, or opportunity to opt out from it is laughable.
As for the idea of the social contract, I think you are actually spot on:
> Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority [...] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.
Individuals have:
[?] consented explicitly
[x] consented tacitly
[x] to surrender some of their freedoms
[x] to submit to the authority [Facebook]
[ ] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights
[x] in exchange for maintenance of the social order
In fact, it could even be argued that this de-facto state of affair ought to be made de-jure. Certainly, it is the case already today that many of my local government agencies are more active on Twitter or Facebook than they are over phone or e-mail. In fact, they rarely use e-mail for regulatory reasons. If someone is suicidal, has an extreme drinking problem, or holds extremist political beliefs, we consider this a transgression and rightfully lock them up/commit them to involuntary psychiatric care. Why is this not the case for all self-harmful behaviors?
Considering many employers etc. already want it, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider people hermits for refusing to participate, just as we consider an individual defect for not owning a smartphone.