How a Relationship Dies on Facebook | Hacker News Reader

How a Relationship Dies on Facebook

newyorker.com

72 pointsdanso59 comments

Relationships die for a lot of reasons. Facebook could just be that cathartic destination of our love-anxieties. It's a convenient target, organizing memories and suitors and character in a psychologically-exploitative document.

I don't think Facebook generates envy, or even facilitates it. It just organizes it. I think if you feel envy and jealousy you're going to spread it out among lots of anxieties or maybe focus it on Facebook—not necessarily experience more of it.

Besides, think of all the healthy interactions we get from Facebook. It lets the folks who have a hard time selling themselves in real life advertise their character in an uninhibited way. We get to advertise the pretty sides and the ugly sides of ourselves, if we choose.

It's like any form of expression. Generally good I think. Though I did read lately that learning how to broadcast is not the same as learning how to converse, and maybe that's the root poison. It is fundamentally about selling yourself and sharing a lot, which isn't always a healthy thing.

Especially for relationships.

Nineteen per cent of teens have posted updates, photos, or other content that they later regret sharing, and seventy-four per cent have deleted people from their network.

I don't really know what these numbers are supposed to show. I've shared content that I've later regretted sharing, but it wasn't a lot of regret. If someone had asked me that question in a survey I would have probably answered yes, but it wouldn't really mean anything.

I've also deleted people from my network, but that was because I didn't really care about them. I can't really find any important information in these numbers

I deleted my FB account a couple of years ago for many of the reasons cited in the article. There is, however, a social cost to not being on FB, especially if your social circle is not technologically adept. A salient example: An old friend of mine (like many people, I gather) has gradually slipped into a mode where she uses FB exclusively for electronic communication. She no longer checks her email accounts. She only uses FB messaging and FB status updates to keep in touch with her friends. In today's "simplify your life" culture (which I think is a good thing, generally) she has pared down her electronic footprint to a single service, FB. Recently I discovered through a mutual friend (over email) that my friend's mother is basically dying of cancer, she has travelled back home to be with her mother, etc etc. I didn't know any of this because I'm not on FB, and FB is where my friend chose to inform everyone, keep everyone up to date on progress, appeal for donations, organize social events, etc. Sure, I could be in touch by telephone, and obviously I wasn't ... but what if your friend(s) are not really phone people? I guess the point of this comment is, what if your friends are FB people? If you choose not to be, there is a social cost. Having said all that, I still will not establish a (new) FB account. (I presume despite deleting it, my old one still exists somewhere in the bowels of their servers)

downvoted? seriously? perhaps it would be informative to explain why? in all seriousness, I'd like to know

I closed my fb account two or three years ago, at a point when I was really virulently anti-fb. I still haven't re-opened it, but I've mellowed a bit--not that I approve of it, really--it's a disgusting panopticon at best--but it's at least sufficiently obvious that it's hard for me to feel like anyone hangs out there without understanding what the basic dynamic is.

Now, articles like this don't make me feel bad for the kids who 'have to' use facebook (not that they don't; it sucks being ostracized, we all know). Really, they make me remember this talk by Steve Yegge[1] about how stupid it is that so many smart people spend their time working on cat pictures.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKmQW_Nkfk8

Anyone else sick of these high-brow publications staffed with greying gen-xers trying to "understand the youth", "the shifting nature of our relationships", in this "crazy digital age". It seems every week there's a new Salon, NY-Times, Newyorker, etc half-baked stab at trying to catch the youth zeitgeist and define it. It was interesting a few years ago when social networks were new, but this is so well worn. Is culture plateauing or something? Stop being so heck-darn lazy.

The author graduated from university 2 years ago. She's probably 24 years old.

You put quotes around several phrases that are not used in the featured article. I suspect you do not understand this punctuation mark.

Welp, your suspicions are wrong friendo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

A scare quote is still a quote: Scientist X says that "nuclear radiation" is "harmless".

If you're not actually quoting somebody, the term of the art is "making up shit".

Wow, I love how you're so concerned about my grammar. But you're wrong, homeboy. If you actually read my comment, you'd grok that I was actually addressing a tired theme within the body of recent socio-tech think-pieces, as opposed to directly quoting the article. The scare quotes (which I have ironically employed) relate not to a direct citation, but allude to an over-arching theme. I fail to see how this would not be obvious to somebody with the barely the collective IQ of 11 physical education teachers.

I don't really think the film showed that social networks are a brand new way of social interaction. Certainly, it can be used that way. But jealous lovers went through their significant others' letters just as well. People half-paid attention to telephone conversations. Social networks are just another arena for those kinds of human interaction to appear.

What the film did strike me is about how fundamentally society is getting tied to the internet. These kids have their entire social life connected to each other through technological proxies. People are on computers over ten hours of day, regardless if it's part of their occupation or not. This seems unhealthy.

I deleted my facebook account about 5 years ago and I haven't regretted it for one day. From my perspective the people that use facebook are weak. They use it because other people tell them to use it and no other reason. If they don't see that then they are even weaker.

Companies that brand through facebook are worse. The company is such a bad one that the only way it builds its customer base is by appealing to these people.

The whole thing is depressing.

Or maybe they actually know people with whom they want to stay in touch.

Having elderly relatives you care about doesn't make you "weak".

It's a communication tool, just like email, phone and letters. "Using" it does not have to mean you're on it for hours a day. My main purpose for using it is to keep in contact with people who live far away from me, and to organize meeting up with people who live near me. I find it strange that you think that makes me "weak."

> It's a communication tool, just like email, phone and letters.

Except that it's a public company that makes money selling your data to advertisers. It's a very important difference compared to letters, phone or (to a certain extent) email.

Except it doesn't actually sell your data to advertisers. It gives advertisers the ability to target people with certain types of data for a limited amount of time. They don't deliver your data to them.

I sincerely hate the term "selling data". No one "sells data". It's a term I think people use because it sounds scarier.

I'd say if you haven't used a website in 5 years your opinion is pretty weak. This is like saying iPhones are crap and you stopped using them 5 years ago. There's been many product iterations since then in both cases.

I've deactivated my Facebook account too, but it wasn't weakness that kept me there. Just like with anything, moderation is the key. If you can't do that then the best thing to do is delete. But I wouldn't call >1 billion people on Facebook 'weak.'

I would. Naked apes strive for status: facebook is (sort of) a super-version of that striving. If I were an alien tasked with invading earth, I'd figure out a way to convince humans that surrendering would get them laid. Since there are so many humans, their ancestors must have wanted to reproduce; therefore, they probably do too. It targets their weakness, ergo, they're weak. There's no shame in it.

It seems like your definition of weak would include most high status people. That feels like not a great or useful definition.

Seeing how there is a huge number of drug users amongst the richest, I am unsure if grandparent was on to something or not.

I didn't realize there were brushes broad enough to paint a billion and change people with.

So you're redefining "engaging in behavior likely to lead to reproduction" as "weakness"?

Darwin would be intrigued by that idea, I'm sure.

Darwin would probably say it depends on context.

There is a species of fish that has females running alongside sharks, their natural predators, in attempt to prevent being impregnated by the males. Think about it. A species that tries actively to prevent and postpone copulation.

The only thing that's weak is your ability to see actual functional reasons for having a facebook. It's a great baseline medium to organize events and to keep everyone updated.

it is all about how you use it, if you think that you can use facebook just in that shown way, you are wrong

if used appropriately, it is an awesome tool for social connections

I guess it depends on the age group. But Facebook is how I keep in contact with all of my friends that moved away/don't live in my area.

Do companies ever release linguistic guidelines?

Do you have "a facebook?" A facebook page? A facebook account? A facebook profile?

People don't "friend my facebook" they "friend me on facebook," so is it "a me on facebook?"

Twitter? Twitter page? Twitter account? Twitter profile? "Check out my twitter," but do people say "I have a twitter?"

GitHub? Do people say "I have a github?" Check out my github? Check out my github account? Follow me on github? Follow my github account?

Didn't all this start with myspace? Is it a my myspace or a myspace? Do you have a myspace or a myspace page or a my myspace page?

Is every sentence in this post a question? Isn't it exhausting?

> Do companies ever release linguistic guidelines?

Yes, sometimes, and people ignore them. So: rarely. And they shouldn't. New language isn't prescribed with any effectiveness. And what you were taught in school is based on analysis (a bad one at that.)

Mostly, they do it for branding and legal reasons. Particularly for trademarks, which can be lost if they become too generic. So they spend a lot of money to spread the word that it's Kleenex brand tissue and a Google search, just in case it will help.

Lego tries to get people to call it's toys "Lego bricks" rather than "Legos" but I think this has not really been successful.

People who are legitimate Lego experts know better than to call them "Legos". These guys are being touted as Tech Gods who Have Something Important To Say To Their Generation.

While it may be a little bothersome to hear a random person call them "Legos", it's not the same as hearing a self-proclaimed expert call them that.

There are legitimate Lego experts? Also, I don't think I've met a single human being in person who doesn't call them Legos.

I'm British and until American TV I'd never heard anyone call them 'Legos'

Lego does that on the advice of their trademark lawyers, because nouns can't be trademarked.

Outside the Americas, you'll get a whole load of funny looks when you call them legos. It's like pointing out a field of sheeps.

It annoys me to no end when people say they have "a Facebook," but I often wonder if I'm the one that isn't with the times...

Nope, you aren't. Saying "a Facebook" is just stupid. I mean, if these guys have their own Facebooks you have to wonder why they need grant money, right?

They also repeat the "computer is isolating" nonsense. A friend got to see his daughter take her first steps while he was in Afghanistan. Yep, really "isolating".

I understand where you're coming from, but saying "a facebook" is not stupid, it's just efficient communication. Does saying "a facebook profile" convey any more bits of information to the average message recipient? IMO, to the average person, that would sound as stupid as "can I borrow a pencil with graphite from you?" It's unnecessarily descriptive.

"Pencil with graphite" is redundant. "Facebook" and "Facebook account" are two entirely different things. You don't say "I have a Bank of America" do you?

If efficiency is that important, say "I'm on Facebook" or "I'm not on Facebook". One fewer syllable than "I have a Facebook".

I have a Facebook (account).

It's a testament to their lack of product diversity. No one would say "My Microsoft" or "My Google" or "My Valve" or "My Betty Crocker" because those companies have many credible products. "My Facebook" means "My Facebook account" because the whole company is nothing but a message board.

For serious products, this isn't the case. You might say "My Ford", and everyone would know you're talking about a car, but a car is considerably more significant than a username/password to a message board.

Same problem: I used to work with people who would say "Can you send it to me in Adobe?" or "Do you have Adobe installed?" to mean PDF or Adobe Acrobat.

Adobe still had a dozen products back then, but they had one "consumer" product and the rest were for pros or creatives.

I'd send them a .psd and then act surprised when they couldn't open it.

A friend who did Tech Support Hell while he was in college used to get irked at "my Internet don't (sic) work".

Google has more than one product, but one of their products is nevertheless called Google (the one that's at "google.com"; the referent of the verb "google"; etc.). Internally/formally it may be called "Search" but I dare say most of it's users call it "Google" (they might say "I did a Google search" but not "I used Google Search").

That's different. People may say it's "on Google", or "I used Google", but they don't say "I have a Google".

Now wonder how disorienting it is to work at one of those companies. I believe Amazon gets around this by liberally using the phrase "retail website" to refer to what the rest of the world just calls "Amazon".

> Do companies ever release linguistic guidelines?

Adobe does with Photoshop and others.[1]

[1] http://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html#photo...

Don't you love when games get "released on PC"?

Ah yes, this sort of thing.

Facebook, like the internet, like blogging, like twitter, like crowdfunding, like videogames, like books, like e-commerce, is not some crazy new universe, it's just a medium where human beings can do what they've always done, but perhaps in different ways. It doesn't change the underlying capability of humans for good or ill, nor does it force humans to act differently.

If a drunk person initiates a fistfight with someone else in the parking lot after a football game most people are likely to place this event into the proper context, to put the responsibility on the individual primarily. But if the same thing were to happen under "more unusual" circumstances suddenly all logic flies out the window and people are more inclined to think those circumstances are somehow intimately related to the altercation. If someone kills someone over a video game, if people get into a scuffle after they run into each other on segways, or if some other drug is involved than alcohol, suddenly personal responsibility takes a back seat and moral panic rears its head. If a newspaper gets a story wrong that's one thing, if a blogger gets a story wrong suddenly it's a condemnation of all of internet journalism to its core. And here we have an example of people behaving badly and participating in perhaps human kind's oldest pass-time: horribly broken relationship behavior. And yet somehow all of this is special and unique and new because it happens on facebook, as though all of human history preceding facebook had been a bland parade of utterly normative relationship behavior.

People are weird, sometimes in a good way sometimes in a bad way, and when that weirdness becomes evident on a new medium it implies nothing about that medium other than that it allows humans to act like they've always acted.

P.S. This doesn't mean I think facebook is "good". There are lots of legitimate and even fundamental reasons to dislike or even hate facebook, but this narrative is not a particularly good critique of the platform.

See also: "Internet predators". Sure, they exist, and you need to teach your kids to be safe, but the depressing fact remains that most predators are found in malls, churches, schools, parks... but those things are not as conducive to mass hysteria.

Do you have data on this? Everything I've heard tells me most people like that are someone the victim knows.

You're right. I should have included "in the home" in that list. The same is true for murder victims, I believe. But Internet predators and random serial killers make more exciting TV news stories, so that's what we hear about.

Facebook draws the line between hominids that are serious about personal development, professionalism, the future, and those who are potentially unmindful, postwhores, where each, as with all things, exists on a spectrum waiting to be grokked by neuroscientists.

It's a proverbial turning on of a light-switch to see what is a roach and what is a fixture.

“Facebook exposes everything and nothing about you at the same time, whereas with Chatroulette you can hide behind the nonentity of it. It’s that kind of danger that’s necessary for honest conversation.”

I think this quote nails the problem of Facebook. Facebook pushes social interaction further away from genuineness and honest discourse we long for. Posting pictures, statuses, etc are carefully constructed user activities to fish for "likes" or "comments". It just seems frivolous and fake. Facebook tries so hard not to be seen this way. If you watch some videos previously released by Facebook introducing Timeline and stuff, they try so hard to be like the real photo album filled with photos taken with 35mm camera you and your family kept for decades. If this is what they are striving for, why do they still attempt to reduce human response to a "like".

Sure, this is not just a problem of Facebook. Even in real life, it is hard to make real connection with people. But at least in real life, there's some level of spontaneity. We can't always think ahead about what we are going to say or how we are going to react to the interlocuteur which brings out some genuineness in human interaction. Making meaningful lasting connection in real life is hard as is. Facebook push a person further down into the trenches of disguises and fakeries in dealing with people.

Just today, I wrote about why it's difficult to have an honest opinion about something online. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6386647) As a response to the problem, I created Dmtri (http://dmtri.com/). I hope HN users check it out. Feel free to comment what you think about it.

Of course I want responses if I post a picture on Facebook. It's exactly the same when I show a picture to a friend out in the world: I want a response. I have something I want to share. This desire does not become magically "bad" just because it happens online.

I have family and friends who live far away. I don't have the opportunity to visit them as much as I would like. If it was not for Facebook, I wouldn't see these pictures, or find out about events. The obvious counter to this is, "You would probably visit them more." I do not think that is true. Because I am able to find out what is going on with them on a regular basis, they stay in my mind, and I miss them more, and I want to go visit. I think that without Facebook and the ease through which I can maintain connections, these relationships would fade.

And the obvious response to that is that the relationships weren't that strong to begin with, which I also don't think is true. Maintaining friendships over distance can be awkward for people who don't have a history of talking on the phone, or expressing themselves through text.

Spending an inordinate amount of time on Facebook is bad. But this notion that using it at all is bad seems silly to me. People used to say similar things about phones.

people will have masks its just human nature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com