What’s the virtue in offending people when you could instead be kind?
I know one woman who is having a baby shower, and I know another woman who recently dealt with the loss of her child. It’s not “secrecy” to celebrate the baby shower and avoid bringing it up with the recently bereaved, it’s respect and good taste.
I feel like we used to call it discretion…
If you want to go out with friend A but don't want friend B to see it for whatever reason (maybe B has a feud with A), then that is a thing between B and A, but not you.
I think the whole point of the OP comment is to just go with it. If you don't flauntingly advertise it, it is not your fault.
But in a very social media centric world, even if you are just a participant in a picture can feel like "flaunting it" to 3rd parties.
That's a stretch, considering previous generations forbid people from discussing all manner of life issues and events out of "discretion", which in my estimation has been a key factor in perpetuating shame and all of the horrifying things that come from societal shame.
Not bringing up a sensitive topic when interacting with someone is discretion. Hiding a major life event because it might trigger one person is silly.
There's a phase in a big chunk of people's lives where the only thing on their social media is about having a baby. If you're traumatized by that it's up to you, not everyone else, to keep it away from yourself (e.g. stay off social media or start a new profile and only follow hyperpop jazz trombone and COBOL enthusiasts... or whatever).
Not wanting to share your life on social media is one thing, picking and choosing to keep things secret from person A or B because of some drama or another is childish.
I don’t want to be locked out of the joys of celebrating with friends due to misguided attempts to protect me. If going to a baby shower is going to be a problem, let me decide that.
I’m an adult, and I can use my words to say no for myself. For the record, our own experience hasn’t kept us from enjoying time with pregnant couples, children or babies.
On the other hand, if I found out that my friends were excluding me or my wife from social events, I would actually be upset at having my agency removed.
If the person suffering the loss has asked to not be included, that is different.
Having a good thing happen or preventing bad things from happening sadly show up as high stakes butterfly effects of the perverted social ranking and opinion games.
On the other hand, social media is really the pinnacle of "the court of public opinion"; people feel more comfortable seeing what photos and social groups you appear in as evidence of "who you are". He/she appears in <insert well established group here> and therefore must be <well-established person>.
I have fallen into this trap (and still do from time to time) of trying to control the way other people perceive me. The thing is, it only works like half the time and often actually backfires.
There are two reasons this doesn’t work: 1) you’re spending energy trying to control others’ perception of you and 2) you don’t actually know what’s going on in someone else’s head, so a lot of the time that energy isn’t well spent
It's fine to overshare as much of your life as you're comfortable with. But we should be more mindful of how we include others in this.
As a more general example, you wouldn't talk about a happy hour you were going to after work with people who weren't invited/aren't invited/you wouldn't invite. I believe every sitcom on the planet has at least one episode with this lesson in it.
Define "own the decision not to." Surely you don't mean that every time you are planning an event you must preemptively inform everyone who is not invited that they are not invited, because that's clearly ludicrous.
It's called social etiquette and consideration. Sometimes it's misplaced; sometimes it's unneeded. But sometimes it is required.
Humans are not machines. Human interactions do not have many hard rules.
Are you sure?
one which has been intentionally cultivated, exploited, and capitalized, by Meta,
so yes, it is Instagram's fault. They are the primary party—though I do not excuse those complicit with surveillance capitalism, meaning every person who continues despite unending evidence for how sociopathic and destructive the company, its management, and its impact is, to use their products. Which use however is also traceable in significant part back to Meta, via the ugly mechanics of exploitative and amoral engagement-engineering and their exploitation of monopoly.
This is a front upon which they might and should be confronted... a class action on behalf of those have not consented to participate in surviellance would be a lovely thing.
Under the current political shitshow, also in measurable part the "fault" of Meta, however, we can expect no such thing.
Rue the consequences of making working for Meta socially and career viable at leisure. Maybe in an El Salvador prison.
The one-community broadcast-everything model has been embraced and encouraged by these surveillance-based businesses who don't want you to think too hard why they are also privy to all of your communications, and also want to drive the maximum number of interactions for "engagement" metrics. Non-corporate social media, "indie" web, and group chats are much more natural organic patterns of communication.