Personal Reason for Hating Facebook (2015)(righteousruminations.blogspot.com)
righteousruminations.blogspot.com
Personal Reason for Hating Facebook (2015)
https://righteousruminations.blogspot.com/2015/06/hating-facebook.html
109 comments
The problem is one of counterfactuals. Given the growth of the internet, something that provides the value of Facebook to people was inevitable. What wasn't inevitable was that it take on the form of a centralized service that ended up enveloping the world. In the past, centralized services gave way to shared internet protocols before they reached the size and scale Facebook has.
There are certainly other paths the world could have taken where such power and control would not be in the hands of one company (and one person, really) but that's not what happened and it's worth lamenting if you believe the problem of "keeping friends connected through the internet" could have taken on radically different forms.
There are certainly other paths the world could have taken where such power and control would not be in the hands of one company (and one person, really) but that's not what happened and it's worth lamenting if you believe the problem of "keeping friends connected through the internet" could have taken on radically different forms.
Disagree.
I am around your age, and my 10 year reunion had its own domain name and website (still up - not sure who is paying for it or hosting), but my most recent reunion (20 year) was only on Facebook, and since I have never had a Facebook account, I did not find out until about a week beforehand (second-hand from a friend who was not attending).
Please be aware, this is a cohort that has mostly been together since elementary/middle school, learned Logowriter together, and had an HTML CD-ROM yearbook.
Facebook has made everybody lazy and cheapened our relationships.
I am around your age, and my 10 year reunion had its own domain name and website (still up - not sure who is paying for it or hosting), but my most recent reunion (20 year) was only on Facebook, and since I have never had a Facebook account, I did not find out until about a week beforehand (second-hand from a friend who was not attending).
Please be aware, this is a cohort that has mostly been together since elementary/middle school, learned Logowriter together, and had an HTML CD-ROM yearbook.
Facebook has made everybody lazy and cheapened our relationships.
How were people supposed to find about your domain name and website? How would you reach those who changed emails?
How does lack of domain and website cheapens relationships?
How does lack of domain and website cheapens relationships?
There used to be these things called search engines, and we would be able to type the name of the school and the year we graduated, and the site would be one of the first results.
The domain was named to indicate it was reunion related.
If you couldn't find somebody's email address, you emailed their friend, or called them, and asked, "Do you know how I can get int touch with so and so...?"
YOU WOULD NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANOTHER HUMAN TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.
But now, if it takes any effort to communicate with somebody, it doesn't happen.
Only the easy communication...and there is not much substance to it (bullshit small-talk or just posting links).
The domain was named to indicate it was reunion related.
If you couldn't find somebody's email address, you emailed their friend, or called them, and asked, "Do you know how I can get int touch with so and so...?"
YOU WOULD NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANOTHER HUMAN TO OBTAIN INFORMATION.
But now, if it takes any effort to communicate with somebody, it doesn't happen.
Only the easy communication...and there is not much substance to it (bullshit small-talk or just posting links).
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here. So your value proposition is to make it harder to organize events and find out what’s going on?
I am not happy where we are as a society.
The "easy-ness" diminishes the quality of interaction.
The "easy-ness" diminishes the quality of interaction.
Are you the person that went through all that hunting and enjoyed the process or rather other people spent their evening by that work?
Facebook is killing communication and friendship much less then 80 hours a week work schedule combined with long commute and with people changing jobs every 2 years on average. And maybe add to it nearly complete isolation after people have children. If any moment not spend with work or personal project is considered lazy, relationships have to go away.
Facebook is killing communication and friendship much less then 80 hours a week work schedule combined with long commute and with people changing jobs every 2 years on average. And maybe add to it nearly complete isolation after people have children. If any moment not spend with work or personal project is considered lazy, relationships have to go away.
> The "easy-ness" diminishes the quality of interaction.
For you, maybe. For me and others, it makes it easier to organize events and coordinate meetings with friends. Why do you assume your experience is universal? It might be a problem in your circle, but that doesn’t mean it is in everyone else’s.
For you, maybe. For me and others, it makes it easier to organize events and coordinate meetings with friends. Why do you assume your experience is universal? It might be a problem in your circle, but that doesn’t mean it is in everyone else’s.
This is the reason i joined Facebook in the first place. I was at graduate school, and had a decent social life with some of the other students. Then a few of them got Facebook, and started using that to organise parties. After i missed a couple, for no reason other than that i wasn't on Facebook and the people organising them were some combination of lazy and scatterbrained, i joined.
I did that in part because i didn't want a repeat of the experience i had with LiveJournal as an undergraduate, where conversation and organisation that had been happening in university newsgroups suddenly evacuated to LJ and left me on my own.
(I don't think these moves were deliberate attempts to avoid me. I'm still good friends with all these people decades later, and they really would have found a way to shake me by now.)
I did that in part because i didn't want a repeat of the experience i had with LiveJournal as an undergraduate, where conversation and organisation that had been happening in university newsgroups suddenly evacuated to LJ and left me on my own.
(I don't think these moves were deliberate attempts to avoid me. I'm still good friends with all these people decades later, and they really would have found a way to shake me by now.)
If you lost contact so long ago, it migt be better to leave it like that: https://thoughtcatalog.com/stephanie-georgopulos/2011/08/a-l...
Spectacular essay — thanks for posting.
> The point being, it is just as likely that the writer of this post wasn’t left out any more than he would have been in the past.
Although this may apply to OP's problem(s), it's not really the case everywhere. I'll give you two counterexamples:
1) A friend of mine is required to have a facebook account for school (woodworking trade school). They say "you can always create one with a fake name" but that's obviously a TOS violation and may cause the account to be deleted at any time (making schoolwork really difficult).
2) My basketball group has decided to organize things on WhatsApp, again requiring you to accept FB's EULA. I refuse to do so, which results me in missing quite a few occasions to play and finding myself alone in the gym when practice has been called off.
Neither of these things were done on facebook in the past. Yes, it might be more convenient to do so (for the organizing party) but it'll leave a bunch of people out who refuse to sign carte blanche EULA for a company that preys on our personal information and influences our voting behavior.
Both of these cases are examples where email or phone would be acceptable, but it's (only) slightly more convenient to use social media for those who are a part of it.
Although this may apply to OP's problem(s), it's not really the case everywhere. I'll give you two counterexamples:
1) A friend of mine is required to have a facebook account for school (woodworking trade school). They say "you can always create one with a fake name" but that's obviously a TOS violation and may cause the account to be deleted at any time (making schoolwork really difficult).
2) My basketball group has decided to organize things on WhatsApp, again requiring you to accept FB's EULA. I refuse to do so, which results me in missing quite a few occasions to play and finding myself alone in the gym when practice has been called off.
Neither of these things were done on facebook in the past. Yes, it might be more convenient to do so (for the organizing party) but it'll leave a bunch of people out who refuse to sign carte blanche EULA for a company that preys on our personal information and influences our voting behavior.
Both of these cases are examples where email or phone would be acceptable, but it's (only) slightly more convenient to use social media for those who are a part of it.
The generations of people who used email and phone primarily are simply getting older, I think. It kinda forces the hand of this alternative.
Of the soccer team, basketball, and parenting groups I'm in; more and more of my peers probably couldn't even define a "calling tree". To them, there's no "alternative" to group coordination other than social media.
It's just easier to reach out on [X Technology] because they already friend-ed each other the first day of meeting. And FB makes that easy with location-based friend recommendations. Who even knows phone numbers anymore? (Emails next...)
Of the soccer team, basketball, and parenting groups I'm in; more and more of my peers probably couldn't even define a "calling tree". To them, there's no "alternative" to group coordination other than social media.
It's just easier to reach out on [X Technology] because they already friend-ed each other the first day of meeting. And FB makes that easy with location-based friend recommendations. Who even knows phone numbers anymore? (Emails next...)
convenient = lazy
Agreed. Furthermore, Facebook doesn't require your work history or any of the other things the author claims is it's blood payment cost of entry. Last I checked it needs a valid email address, name, and password.
I've stripped most of my personal information off Facebook and now just use it as a messaging app and a "find me by name" sort of internet yellow pages thing.
I've stripped most of my personal information off Facebook and now just use it as a messaging app and a "find me by name" sort of internet yellow pages thing.
> Last I checked it needs a valid email address, name, and password.
And your social graph. You implicitly give it information about all your interactions and connections - and allow it to record even interactions you aren't aware of (like other FB users looking you up or checking your profile without interacting with you in ways you find out about). You're also opting in to web-wide surveillance, where FB track you individually across every webpage with Facebook social widget on it (unless you take steps to manage your browser's FB login status - and most likely even if you do log out whenever you're done with FB by using "industry standard" ad network browser fingerprinting...)
And your social graph. You implicitly give it information about all your interactions and connections - and allow it to record even interactions you aren't aware of (like other FB users looking you up or checking your profile without interacting with you in ways you find out about). You're also opting in to web-wide surveillance, where FB track you individually across every webpage with Facebook social widget on it (unless you take steps to manage your browser's FB login status - and most likely even if you do log out whenever you're done with FB by using "industry standard" ad network browser fingerprinting...)
> Last I checked it needs a valid email address, name, and password.
I’ve had friends have to submit government ID to prove that they were using their real name.
I’ve had friends have to submit government ID to prove that they were using their real name.
Why is wyager getting down voted? This is not uncommon given that people with certain types of last names (e.g. Yellow Horse) are targeted and then need to prove who they are. I cannot confidently say they don't keep the id given the whole phone call revelations of the last week.
It also requires that you allow it to then track you all over the internet, associate that activity with your name and email and social graph, and then sell it to advertisers allowing them to target your activity and your friends elsewhere on the web.
Exactly this. My girlfriend uses the same reasoning to downplay the level of tracking Facebook can do on her. 'Yes I use Facebook, but I don't put any personal information on it, and I have everything set to private'.
The problem is, that after you sign up and enter only your e-mail address, Facebook will fill in all the blanks for you, without needing any interaction from your side...
The problem is, that after you sign up and enter only your e-mail address, Facebook will fill in all the blanks for you, without needing any interaction from your side...
I'm not a fan of Facebook, use it, also happen to be cutting back. You are correct at the minimal set of interactions necessary to be on there. Honestly, the post mentioned sounded more like whining and an excuse for personal lapses -- "don't contact close friends for an extended period of time". If the writer had put a bit more energy into maintaining offline relationships, maybe he would have heard about both events prior to them happening.
edit: cleaning up the grammar
edit: cleaning up the grammar
Facebook's primary feature is a newsfeed which uses an algorithm to shape and influence who you ultimately interact with. If you consign your interpersonal relationship to Facebook's algorithms then it has become normal for facebook's algorithm to shape and control the opinions and relationships of people en-masse.
Whether you consider facebook's algorithms benevolent or not, the danger actually lies in the fact that people's opinions and friendships are not forming in a more natural and organic way. If relationships and opinions are shaped by an algorithm from a single source, it's more prone to failure, influence, if not by malevolence than by simple incompetence of not knowing the macro effects of a line of code applied to hundreds of millions of people.
Whether you consider facebook's algorithms benevolent or not, the danger actually lies in the fact that people's opinions and friendships are not forming in a more natural and organic way. If relationships and opinions are shaped by an algorithm from a single source, it's more prone to failure, influence, if not by malevolence than by simple incompetence of not knowing the macro effects of a line of code applied to hundreds of millions of people.
Right. Features are for customers. Facebook's primary feature is ubiquitous surveillance of 2 billion users. The newsfeed is a use of that feature, where advertisers and "Facebook partners" can pay to manipulate targeted portions of those 2 billion users.
To Facebook _users_, the newsfeed is just a gimmick they use to get you to reveal more about you and your friends/connections than you would otherwise.
To Facebook _users_, the newsfeed is just a gimmick they use to get you to reveal more about you and your friends/connections than you would otherwise.
A few months ago I won about $200 worth of Amazon gift card codes. Since nothing from Amazon delivers to my country I decided to give them to an American friend of mine. I remember it was late for him when I sent him the codes over Facebook so he only used up one right away and then went to sleep.
The next morning, however, the other coupons were all used up. He claims nobody else has access to his FB messages and I never bothered to actually check the validity of the codes on Amazon, so there is enough room for plausible deniability, but this coincided in time with this reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/79x7u3/facebook_em... and now there's that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that some underpaid 3rd world facebook employee read through the messages and decided to use the codes themselves.
I don't know, this is all probably a stretch, but that moment reached a new low for Facebook in my mind (not that my opinion of them was high before).
The next morning, however, the other coupons were all used up. He claims nobody else has access to his FB messages and I never bothered to actually check the validity of the codes on Amazon, so there is enough room for plausible deniability, but this coincided in time with this reddit post https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/79x7u3/facebook_em... and now there's that nagging feeling in the back of my mind that some underpaid 3rd world facebook employee read through the messages and decided to use the codes themselves.
I don't know, this is all probably a stretch, but that moment reached a new low for Facebook in my mind (not that my opinion of them was high before).
Did you contacted Amazon to clarify gift-codes usage?
I will say that if you are organizing an event on Facebook, and you actually have a list of people you'd like to see there or who should be there, then if you don't make an effort to contact the non-FB people, you're a bit of a jackass.
We put together a big list of people for a HS reunion, and used real-life social networks to (try to) reach the names that weren't on FB. Mostly successful and with a large nucleus who were on FB, easy to distribute the workload.
We put together a big list of people for a HS reunion, and used real-life social networks to (try to) reach the names that weren't on FB. Mostly successful and with a large nucleus who were on FB, easy to distribute the workload.
I empathize a lot with this guy. I wanted to share my recent story:
I unfollowed every single person and page I'm connected to on Facebook a month and a half ago.
Every time I look at a Facebook there's just about no value. My feed is empty. Nevertheless, I'll visit it by habit. It's weird to see how that persists.
I am not posting (never really did anyway), and I have no idea what's going on with the people I didn't really interact with that much anyway.
What put me over the edge was answering the question: "Does anyone that I deeply care for post anything (at all)?"
Answer for 90% was no. And there rest I still have phone/text to communicate.
This has all made me consider what relationships in my life are important. And it's made me consider how susceptible I was to a fine-tuned algorithm hungry for outrage and virality, and how that influenced my relationships and myself.
I feel great opting out. I hope to fully delete the whole thing soon. Weird that I can't just do that.
I recommend the unfollow thing.
I unfollowed every single person and page I'm connected to on Facebook a month and a half ago.
Every time I look at a Facebook there's just about no value. My feed is empty. Nevertheless, I'll visit it by habit. It's weird to see how that persists.
I am not posting (never really did anyway), and I have no idea what's going on with the people I didn't really interact with that much anyway.
What put me over the edge was answering the question: "Does anyone that I deeply care for post anything (at all)?"
Answer for 90% was no. And there rest I still have phone/text to communicate.
This has all made me consider what relationships in my life are important. And it's made me consider how susceptible I was to a fine-tuned algorithm hungry for outrage and virality, and how that influenced my relationships and myself.
I feel great opting out. I hope to fully delete the whole thing soon. Weird that I can't just do that.
I recommend the unfollow thing.
I remember when I tried to do the same thing three years ago (the year before I deleted my account) – Unfollow every person. AFAIK I had 600+ contacts.
What was funny, after ~300 clicks I got the captcha to fill and 14 clicks later week block with a message: "This is not a proper using of the function". Also, FB was hypocritical. It allowed me to click to follow again, just unfollow was blocked. :-)
What was funny, after ~300 clicks I got the captcha to fill and 14 clicks later week block with a message: "This is not a proper using of the function". Also, FB was hypocritical. It allowed me to click to follow again, just unfollow was blocked. :-)
I did the same thing: Unfollowed everybody except for the people I truly cared about. Needless to say the news feed wasn’t nearly as full, and a lot of the content was redundant because I had a real “off network” relationship with the people I still followed. It became unnecessary to check Facebook at this point, and now I rarely log in, if at all.
I also highly recommend curating who you follow, you may realize you don’t need FB after all.
I also highly recommend curating who you follow, you may realize you don’t need FB after all.
You don't have to delete it. I signed in my Facebook account for a first time in about 5 years, and find I lose nothing. I did not unfollow anyone I followed, and spent 5 minutes reading about some recent news, feeling guilty of wasting that time.
> Every time I look at a Facebook there's just about no value. My feed is empty. Nevertheless, I'll visit it by habit. It's weird to see how that persists.
To eliminate this behavior I use the Crackbook extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/crackbook-revival/...
It acts as hinted in this comic: https://xkcd.com/862/
To eliminate this behavior I use the Crackbook extension: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/crackbook-revival/...
It acts as hinted in this comic: https://xkcd.com/862/
> I hate that, if I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events. Not being on Facebook is sort of like not having a cellphone. Sure, me and a small number of weirdos can opt out, but we are increasingly disadvantaged by it.
This captures perfectly my reasons for getting on Facebook in ~2007. One of my best friends had a baby and I was the only one who didn't know because I wasn't on there. I'd also been one of the last of my friends to get a cellphone 3 years before, and was starting to worry that I was just a jerk about keeping in touch.
It's really interesting to compare those two decisions now. The slider phone I got in 2003 was nothing like what we have today, but buying it let me participate in a communication ecosystem that's still evolving fast.
Facebook feels really stagnant by comparison. Its core mechanics, at least the ones I care about, are unchanged. Everyone's usage of it long ago stagnated into the same patterns. I still check it because I have to for life events, but it's not something I look forward to.
This captures perfectly my reasons for getting on Facebook in ~2007. One of my best friends had a baby and I was the only one who didn't know because I wasn't on there. I'd also been one of the last of my friends to get a cellphone 3 years before, and was starting to worry that I was just a jerk about keeping in touch.
It's really interesting to compare those two decisions now. The slider phone I got in 2003 was nothing like what we have today, but buying it let me participate in a communication ecosystem that's still evolving fast.
Facebook feels really stagnant by comparison. Its core mechanics, at least the ones I care about, are unchanged. Everyone's usage of it long ago stagnated into the same patterns. I still check it because I have to for life events, but it's not something I look forward to.
Updated to reflect that I wrote this in 2015. Still feel raw about it.
I really sympathize with statements like this:
>I hate that, if I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events.
I feel very much the same way. Social media is a tool that we can use to make social interaction more convenient, but it should not replace real social interaction. Writing a letter, an email, calling a friend, or even sending a text should not be replaced by Facebook because it is ultimately a corporation that seeks to exploit those very interactions for its own profit through means you may not agree with -- that is, selling off your personal data to advertisers.
That being said, it's fine to use Facebook occasionally to check up on what's happening with your friends across the globe. But I really think that everyone should consider removing their "close" friends from Facebook and moving that communication to in-person talks, phone calls, or even text messages. If you're logging onto Facebook even once a day, you're playing into their psychological traps: it's probably best reserved for a lazy Sunday afternoon, something like how older folks treat email. You certainly don't need it on your phone.
If you're concerned that you'll lose friends by deleting your Facebook, you can always keep a Messenger account connected to your phone number and not miss out on group communications. If you're a mover and shaker in your social groups, try pulling your groups away from Facebook. Organizing an event? Offer to send out a mass email to people instead of using Facebook. Or text people yourself instead. Decoupling yourself from Facebook only gives you more power when they decide to do misbehave (do you really think this is the last or worse scandal we'll see from Zuck), and if you're really successful, your friend group will eventually start to realize that they don't need Facebook any more either. Everyone isn't going to delete their Facebook overnight, but if folks start to disconnect bit by bit we'll a) all be better off and have more future options when it comes to Facebook's manipulation and b) start to make Facebook less and less valuable, so eventually people won't even want to join in the first place. "What is an ocean... but a multitude of drops?"
>I hate that, if I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events.
I feel very much the same way. Social media is a tool that we can use to make social interaction more convenient, but it should not replace real social interaction. Writing a letter, an email, calling a friend, or even sending a text should not be replaced by Facebook because it is ultimately a corporation that seeks to exploit those very interactions for its own profit through means you may not agree with -- that is, selling off your personal data to advertisers.
That being said, it's fine to use Facebook occasionally to check up on what's happening with your friends across the globe. But I really think that everyone should consider removing their "close" friends from Facebook and moving that communication to in-person talks, phone calls, or even text messages. If you're logging onto Facebook even once a day, you're playing into their psychological traps: it's probably best reserved for a lazy Sunday afternoon, something like how older folks treat email. You certainly don't need it on your phone.
If you're concerned that you'll lose friends by deleting your Facebook, you can always keep a Messenger account connected to your phone number and not miss out on group communications. If you're a mover and shaker in your social groups, try pulling your groups away from Facebook. Organizing an event? Offer to send out a mass email to people instead of using Facebook. Or text people yourself instead. Decoupling yourself from Facebook only gives you more power when they decide to do misbehave (do you really think this is the last or worse scandal we'll see from Zuck), and if you're really successful, your friend group will eventually start to realize that they don't need Facebook any more either. Everyone isn't going to delete their Facebook overnight, but if folks start to disconnect bit by bit we'll a) all be better off and have more future options when it comes to Facebook's manipulation and b) start to make Facebook less and less valuable, so eventually people won't even want to join in the first place. "What is an ocean... but a multitude of drops?"
I would have thought a simple solution to
>I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events
Is just to have a facebook account with you name and picture and limit to that? Log in in an incognito window if you really don't want them to know what you are browsing?
>I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events
Is just to have a facebook account with you name and picture and limit to that? Log in in an incognito window if you really don't want them to know what you are browsing?
A fair point, but I would rather they didn't have knowledge of my social graph at all. The minute I make an account, events, friend connections, private messages, and more all start aggregating there. Then you have to log in to check when you get messages and invites, and they know where you connected from and when you connected -- even more data.
And since Facebook is tracking the phone calls and text messages of at least some of my Android-using friends, there goes even more privacy, this time completely out of my control to keep private. Unfortunately Facebook is pretty good at being "sticky".
And since Facebook is tracking the phone calls and text messages of at least some of my Android-using friends, there goes even more privacy, this time completely out of my control to keep private. Unfortunately Facebook is pretty good at being "sticky".
On a related note. A couple of years ago I was really annoyed by all the notifications FB emailed me. I went to settings trying to change it so that FB only sends me emails if someone is tagging me or sending me a message. Maybe I'm stupid, I just couldn't figure it out. They made it so confusing and after a few attempts I just stopped receiving any notifications, missing out some important messages from people. I don't think it's just a bad UX (which it is). It's probably by design, intentionally making it hard for people to disconnect.
And as a counterpoint, I will say that after I deleted my Facebook, I feel a lot more connected to the people I do see, when I see them, because I cannot assume I know anything about their life, and, I have to, yknow, be present with them? i’m
Not being on Facebook is sort of like not having a cellphone.
As someone who has never had a cell phone, I can say that living this way in a first-world country is challenging. I've been in situations where it's assumed I do have a cell phone, and the result ranges from awkward to maddening for the other party.
I also don't have a Facebook account. Not having a cell phone is much more troublesome.
The pull of network effect doesn't just mean that people join for opportunity. If sufficiently insinuated into daily life, some become compelled to join out of necessity.
But with Facebook and Cell Phones, joining this club takes a major toll one's privacy.
That's the dilemma anyone resisting network effect faces.
As someone who has never had a cell phone, I can say that living this way in a first-world country is challenging. I've been in situations where it's assumed I do have a cell phone, and the result ranges from awkward to maddening for the other party.
I also don't have a Facebook account. Not having a cell phone is much more troublesome.
The pull of network effect doesn't just mean that people join for opportunity. If sufficiently insinuated into daily life, some become compelled to join out of necessity.
But with Facebook and Cell Phones, joining this club takes a major toll one's privacy.
That's the dilemma anyone resisting network effect faces.
Not having Facebook and not having a cellphone are two completely different things. If you don't have Facebook, you might miss out on some social stuff. Not having a cellphone is a bad idea, even just from a safety standpoint.
What if there is an incident and you need to call emergency services? Maybe you crash your car? Maybe you come across another crashed car, and can't contact emergency services because you don't have a cellphone?
I understand why you wouldn't want to carry around a cellphone all the time for privacy reasons (government tracking etc.), but why not get a $10 dumbphone and keep it turned off and in your backpack, or in your glovebox in your car? Nobody can track you if it's turned off.
I'm not sure about the USA, but at least in New Zealand, you'd only have to top up a few dollars every 6 months to keep your SIM active, and you don't need to register SIM cards in your name (although I know that other countries, like Australia, require this). Even without a SIM in your phone, you can still ring emergency services. There's no reason not to buy a $5 phone and keep it around just in case.
What if there is an incident and you need to call emergency services? Maybe you crash your car? Maybe you come across another crashed car, and can't contact emergency services because you don't have a cellphone?
I understand why you wouldn't want to carry around a cellphone all the time for privacy reasons (government tracking etc.), but why not get a $10 dumbphone and keep it turned off and in your backpack, or in your glovebox in your car? Nobody can track you if it's turned off.
I'm not sure about the USA, but at least in New Zealand, you'd only have to top up a few dollars every 6 months to keep your SIM active, and you don't need to register SIM cards in your name (although I know that other countries, like Australia, require this). Even without a SIM in your phone, you can still ring emergency services. There's no reason not to buy a $5 phone and keep it around just in case.
I've never had a cellphone either; I do it because of the danger, life is so tame nowerdays that it's one of few thrills that are still legal.
Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you have a cell phone?
You don’t even have a dumb or basic phone?
Its not a matter of trading personal information for access to a social network, which is a reasonable thing to do.
Its a matter of letting a nefarious actor into your life to feed you addictive poison, torpedo your well being, and feed you propaganda. Each new revelation makes this increasingly clear.
Its a matter of letting a nefarious actor into your life to feed you addictive poison, torpedo your well being, and feed you propaganda. Each new revelation makes this increasingly clear.
I can relate to this since I'm an introvert to and don't like social media in general but I do realize that this is how the current generation of society works. If I want to participate in it I have to adapt too.
[Without Facebook], I have to risk missing out on seminal life events
Is missing a high school reunion or the funeral of a long-list friend really "seminal"? Socially awkward, perhaps, but seminal? No, not really. Seminal is getting married, the death of a parent, birth of a child, finishing college. Not getting drunk with a bunch of people you barely know any more.
Is missing a high school reunion or the funeral of a long-list friend really "seminal"? Socially awkward, perhaps, but seminal? No, not really. Seminal is getting married, the death of a parent, birth of a child, finishing college. Not getting drunk with a bunch of people you barely know any more.
Totally agreed.
Seminal literally means "of seed." Seminal moments are the moments in life that "seed" your future. 99.99% of the time your life continue on exactly the same if you attend a funeral or you don't and if you attend a class reunion, or you don't.
Seminal literally means "of seed." Seminal moments are the moments in life that "seed" your future. 99.99% of the time your life continue on exactly the same if you attend a funeral or you don't and if you attend a class reunion, or you don't.
> I hate that, if I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events.
Why not have a Facebook account but only use it read-only for the most part? Nothing requires that you post your beliefs, work history, daily plans and such.
That's what I do. I do post a couple of times or so a year, just to keep the account looking used, but those posts are always just something innocuous. Usually just a link to something funny I saw on Reddit, but sometimes a photo or video of mine. The latest, for example, was a link to this video of several Chestnut-backed Chickadees that landed on my hand to eat peanuts out of my palm [1].
I do the same thing on Twitter.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPgZhSbxU0 If you watch, I recommend a second viewing going frame by frame as they land and takeoff.
Why not have a Facebook account but only use it read-only for the most part? Nothing requires that you post your beliefs, work history, daily plans and such.
That's what I do. I do post a couple of times or so a year, just to keep the account looking used, but those posts are always just something innocuous. Usually just a link to something funny I saw on Reddit, but sometimes a photo or video of mine. The latest, for example, was a link to this video of several Chestnut-backed Chickadees that landed on my hand to eat peanuts out of my palm [1].
I do the same thing on Twitter.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShPgZhSbxU0 If you watch, I recommend a second viewing going frame by frame as they land and takeoff.
> Nothing requires that you post your beliefs, work history, daily plans and such.
Except a lot of information about these things can be inferred simply from using the network, through metadata and behavioral analysis. Facebook will also use their software running on your machine to steal just about every piece of information they can access at rest there.
Except a lot of information about these things can be inferred simply from using the network, through metadata and behavioral analysis. Facebook will also use their software running on your machine to steal just about every piece of information they can access at rest there.
This is actually the reason I quit FB. Nobody was saying anything, but being on FB seemed to replace normal modes of checking in with distant friends and family. Instead of long emails, texts, or phone calls it felt like everyone just defaulted to posting the occasional link or super insidery update.
Closed platforms recreate all previously-solved problems, too, usually requiring you to wait for the gatekeeper to get around to offering a solution.
We have ways to track contacts, organize E-mail threads, view restaurant web sites, etc. and all those tools are uninvented when the data is only visible through Facebook. Even when Facebook graciously permits you to keep using one of your tools (like a web browser), it’s still effectively broken until you log in.
I find a silver lining in this by making it as friction-full as possible for me to view Facebook content. For example, having to unblock domains and log in every time (never saving passwords, etc.). It works: it makes me consider whether or not I really want to spend time viewing whatever silly video/rant/whatever I initially thought was interesting. And of course then I am not sucked into an hour of grazing the rest of the feed.
We have ways to track contacts, organize E-mail threads, view restaurant web sites, etc. and all those tools are uninvented when the data is only visible through Facebook. Even when Facebook graciously permits you to keep using one of your tools (like a web browser), it’s still effectively broken until you log in.
I find a silver lining in this by making it as friction-full as possible for me to view Facebook content. For example, having to unblock domains and log in every time (never saving passwords, etc.). It works: it makes me consider whether or not I really want to spend time viewing whatever silly video/rant/whatever I initially thought was interesting. And of course then I am not sucked into an hour of grazing the rest of the feed.
Note that carrying a smartphone and using a credit card is entrusting a great deal of information to advertising companies. All major phone and credit companies are selling your data (anonymized, to the degree they feel is optimal). I'm not sure that Facebook is any worse.
To be more clear: They know where you go, who you call and text, and what you buy.
To be more clear: They know where you go, who you call and text, and what you buy.
Even on iphone with content blockers running and location services disabled for most apps except while using?
Referring to ad companies here, not NSA etc
Referring to ad companies here, not NSA etc
Yep. Unless you disable your WiFi and only use a VPN while you are connecting to the web via your phone.
Even that doesn't solve the problem...
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/FCC-Mobile-Devices-iPhone-Andro...
"Devices that are not GPS-enabled must be tracked via triangulation with local cellular towers, a time consuming process that can only give an approximate location and can dangerously delay critical assistance. The new regulation will allow almost universal pinpoint location of 911 callers by emergency responders. No date was given for when non-GPS enabled devices must be discontinued, but given FCC estimates that by 2018, 75 percent of all mobile devices will be GPS capable, it is likely that the assumption is the sunsetting of obsolete devices will occur naturally as consumers chuck outdated gadgets for shiny new ones."
I'm really curious to know whether this means my iPhone will give up my GPS location against my preference setting if I call 911, or if it means the carriers are going to be required to improve non-gps derived location data from cell towers to "allow almost universal pinpoint location of 911 callers by emergency responders"...
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/FCC-Mobile-Devices-iPhone-Andro...
"Devices that are not GPS-enabled must be tracked via triangulation with local cellular towers, a time consuming process that can only give an approximate location and can dangerously delay critical assistance. The new regulation will allow almost universal pinpoint location of 911 callers by emergency responders. No date was given for when non-GPS enabled devices must be discontinued, but given FCC estimates that by 2018, 75 percent of all mobile devices will be GPS capable, it is likely that the assumption is the sunsetting of obsolete devices will occur naturally as consumers chuck outdated gadgets for shiny new ones."
I'm really curious to know whether this means my iPhone will give up my GPS location against my preference setting if I call 911, or if it means the carriers are going to be required to improve non-gps derived location data from cell towers to "allow almost universal pinpoint location of 911 callers by emergency responders"...
True, but that's something your cell provider (and the providers of other base stations your phone has pinged) has access to, not your typical website.
But you are 100% correct that the cell network knows to within a rough approximation where you are and how fast you travel. This information is also used to predict where and when the next cell-hand-off will happen.
But you are 100% correct that the cell network knows to within a rough approximation where you are and how fast you travel. This information is also used to predict where and when the next cell-hand-off will happen.
Yep - as always in security, it's important to know who your adversary is.
If your adversary is the NSA(/GRU/Mossad/etc) - you're fucked. Throw away all your electronic devices, torch your house, and hope you make it to Belize before they shut the borders to you.
If your adversary is Law Enforcement, they'll get cell tower data (quite likely without a warrant by just asking), and they'll then mislead a court and jury about how accurate that data is: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phon...
This link: http://urgentcomm.com/psap/different-strokes says that since '05 wireless carriers in The US have been required to do better than just "which cell tower you're connected to", but for some percentage of connections they're required to provide 50 or 150m location accuracy - which they can apparently do using three cell towers and triangulation. Since they're happy to hand over cell tower data to law enforcement when asked (or possibly when asked with a warrant) - I wouldn't bet against then handing this E911 Phase 2 level of location accuracy over.
Somewhat more worryingly... The cell providers seem to be happily monetising that data too: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/15/mobile-phone-companies-app... https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4187654/how-carriers-sell-...
Now out of the four big technology companies - two of them own a mobile OS and so can do whatever-the-fuck they want with your phone if you're "in their camp" and of the remaining two, one of them actually sells you stuff to make a living, the other makes their money by surveilling you.
With Facebook's warchest - what do you reckon the chances are of them _not_ buying cellphone location data on the open market to add to their advertising-marketing machine?
I'm not saying I know they are - but I do know that the data about location down to perhaps 50m accuracy or less is legally required to be available to the cell operators - and they've been caught in the past selling that data - and Facebook have _very_ deep pockets to pay for data to match against theirs. (And there is almost _zero_ chance that whatever the cell companies might to to "anonymise" that cell location data, Facebook wouldn't be able to de-anonymise it by correlating to to other data they collect.)
But yeah, having your phone use a VPN no doubt helps...
If your adversary is the NSA(/GRU/Mossad/etc) - you're fucked. Throw away all your electronic devices, torch your house, and hope you make it to Belize before they shut the borders to you.
If your adversary is Law Enforcement, they'll get cell tower data (quite likely without a warrant by just asking), and they'll then mislead a court and jury about how accurate that data is: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phon...
This link: http://urgentcomm.com/psap/different-strokes says that since '05 wireless carriers in The US have been required to do better than just "which cell tower you're connected to", but for some percentage of connections they're required to provide 50 or 150m location accuracy - which they can apparently do using three cell towers and triangulation. Since they're happy to hand over cell tower data to law enforcement when asked (or possibly when asked with a warrant) - I wouldn't bet against then handing this E911 Phase 2 level of location accuracy over.
Somewhat more worryingly... The cell providers seem to be happily monetising that data too: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/15/mobile-phone-companies-app... https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4187654/how-carriers-sell-...
Now out of the four big technology companies - two of them own a mobile OS and so can do whatever-the-fuck they want with your phone if you're "in their camp" and of the remaining two, one of them actually sells you stuff to make a living, the other makes their money by surveilling you.
With Facebook's warchest - what do you reckon the chances are of them _not_ buying cellphone location data on the open market to add to their advertising-marketing machine?
I'm not saying I know they are - but I do know that the data about location down to perhaps 50m accuracy or less is legally required to be available to the cell operators - and they've been caught in the past selling that data - and Facebook have _very_ deep pockets to pay for data to match against theirs. (And there is almost _zero_ chance that whatever the cell companies might to to "anonymise" that cell location data, Facebook wouldn't be able to de-anonymise it by correlating to to other data they collect.)
But yeah, having your phone use a VPN no doubt helps...
> With Facebook's warchest - what do you reckon the chances are of them _not_ buying cellphone location data on the open market to add to their advertising-marketing machine?
I don't think they would have to pay for it. They're just going to give the phone company a nice fat discount on their advertising campaign. That way they don't have to own up to selling your data either, win/win. /s
Mobile phone location data is so valuable that there are whole companies dedicated to 'enriching' mobile phone OpenRTB requests with location data.
https://www.iab.com/guidelines/real-time-bidding-rtb-project...
I don't think they would have to pay for it. They're just going to give the phone company a nice fat discount on their advertising campaign. That way they don't have to own up to selling your data either, win/win. /s
Mobile phone location data is so valuable that there are whole companies dedicated to 'enriching' mobile phone OpenRTB requests with location data.
https://www.iab.com/guidelines/real-time-bidding-rtb-project...
So the ISP/wifi network owner sells it to advertisers? Or the advertisers are able to get it from browser data they collect even when trackers are blocked?
How does wifi impact it if location services are disabled? Or are you referring to apps that have permissions to list wireless networks?
Your phone carrier still triangulates your location from cell towers you're connected to. It's not as accurate as GPS, but is good enough for many purposes, except in places as dense as NYC.
And don't tell me you're cash-only.
And don't tell me you're cash-only.
Honestly, this is true even if you're on facebook, if the algorithms don't feel like putting the event in your feed.
Yes, exactly. You can sign up to Facebook, but you may not get the notifications you were expecting. You can even set up notifications via email or text message so that you don't have to log in to the site, but what you will get is a stream of of crap as a Facebook AI's feeble attempt to draw you back in to Facebook. But the notifications that you might actually want? Not so much. And even if you do they will be drowned in spam.
Also, in order to have got reunion messages from his school, he'd have to have 'liked' their page. It's kind of a dopey way to advertise a reunion really.
Also, in order to have got reunion messages from his school, he'd have to have 'liked' their page. It's kind of a dopey way to advertise a reunion really.
The major complaint here is that not being on Facebook leaves him out of things that are now on Facebook. And I get that, for a good while I was off facebook entirely and felt quite left out. But still... it doesn't really make sense to me for that to be your primary complaint. You could make the same complaint about email, or the internet in general.
That said, I think it is a terrible shame more efforts haven't gone into making an alternative -- and at this point, it would need to be a compatible alternative -- that is not controlled by a single for-profit organization.
That said, I think it is a terrible shame more efforts haven't gone into making an alternative -- and at this point, it would need to be a compatible alternative -- that is not controlled by a single for-profit organization.
Communicating in a way that is mutually agreeable is a more powerful enabler of friendship than the existence of an entry in Facebook's database.
I put it to you that Facebook is about group communication, whereas friendship is about one-on-one communication. As such Facebook has nothing to do with friendship, and it is a delusion to think otherwise. Those Facebook "friends" are actually acquaintances, and your friends are those smaller number of people whom you talk to outside Facebook.
I put it to you that Facebook is about group communication, whereas friendship is about one-on-one communication. As such Facebook has nothing to do with friendship, and it is a delusion to think otherwise. Those Facebook "friends" are actually acquaintances, and your friends are those smaller number of people whom you talk to outside Facebook.
I fantasize about Facebook just one day utterly disappearing. No warning, just quietly taken offline without explanation, all data deleted without a whisper.
The world would absolutely freak out like never before and I would sit back and chortle with delight as I watched my fellow people throw tantrums like little babies for months on end. Think of the lawsuits and blubbering that would ensue!
I think it would be an excellent lesson to society that they shouldn't ever, ever, ever entrust their personal data to a profit-driven corporation again.
Out of the ashes would arise a better, decentralized system and control would be given back to the individuals and we would stop hating each other and being glued to our fucking phones all the time and, well ok this fantasy has gone off the rails, but you get the idea!
The world would absolutely freak out like never before and I would sit back and chortle with delight as I watched my fellow people throw tantrums like little babies for months on end. Think of the lawsuits and blubbering that would ensue!
I think it would be an excellent lesson to society that they shouldn't ever, ever, ever entrust their personal data to a profit-driven corporation again.
Out of the ashes would arise a better, decentralized system and control would be given back to the individuals and we would stop hating each other and being glued to our fucking phones all the time and, well ok this fantasy has gone off the rails, but you get the idea!
How would that be a lesson to society about entrusting personal data to corporations?
I mean, insofar as society can learn anything, I think if your entire last 10+ years of photos and love letters and baby pictures and the other trillion gigs of intimate shit people have eagerly given to FB suddenly disappeared, you might be a little less willing to so unconditionally trust the next FB that comes along. IDK man! By that point, there's a new generation chompin' at the bit to give away their gigs of content and the cycle repeats. Guess we're stuck w/ FB forever. And war. War will never go away either.
Social networks and Facebook in general are a certain aspect of "progress" in society. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's ubiquitous enough that it's considered a primary contact channel that reaches many people at once. Not liking it/hating it/etc. is fine. It's one's own prerogative. But don't complain other people find it useful and you will be left behind because you don't.
An exaggerated analogy is like saying "I don't like computers/cars/aeroplanes/internet. I hate that. It's not right I am left behind for not wanting to use it".
It's not that the author didn't get to chat about people's lunch on Facebook every morning. It's that the author wasn't invited to things he should have been invited to because to many people, "I invited everyone from my FB list" sounds like they invited everyone they reasonably could. Which is not true. The author explicitly says that he is easy to find. And his school friends should take the extra several minutes to searchengine each person they didn't have on facebook if the event is relatively big and organized. It should be the default response. And the author is rightly frustrated that it isn't, because people are lazy and can unintentionally be careless.
That isn't comparable to not being invited to a spontaneous dinner in 2 hours at 9PM by someone clicking invite all of their contacts list tagged as classmates because you're living in the mountaints a one-hour flight and a two hour hike away without any communication tools around you and you don't even believe in flights.
I don't mean these examples to sound flippant, they're here because I'm trying to underline how there's reasonable compromises between convenience and being a good friend / event organizer, and not being on facebook doesn't make you hard to contact. It definitely didn't in the case of the author.
That isn't comparable to not being invited to a spontaneous dinner in 2 hours at 9PM by someone clicking invite all of their contacts list tagged as classmates because you're living in the mountaints a one-hour flight and a two hour hike away without any communication tools around you and you don't even believe in flights.
I don't mean these examples to sound flippant, they're here because I'm trying to underline how there's reasonable compromises between convenience and being a good friend / event organizer, and not being on facebook doesn't make you hard to contact. It definitely didn't in the case of the author.
All fair points and an indication to the quality of 'friends' sometimes who might or might not make the effort. One point I'll make is that being on LinkedIn, to me, as what being on Facebook is for him. I don't like LinkedIn, but I'm on it, reluctantly. I am only there for potential business and 'presence'. My "contacts" are mostly former colleagues, and recruiters. Every button click on LinkedIn requires a second thought as it might be a contact harvesting trap or worst. I really don't like it, yet I'm there because I realise that sometimes this is a viable channel for this or that purpose.
Well said.
A talk by Moxie Marlinspike called "Changing threats to privacy" also addressed some of these network effect aspects in a thoughtful way. https://archive.org/details/youtube-dBtmzY5gcO8
A talk by Moxie Marlinspike called "Changing threats to privacy" also addressed some of these network effect aspects in a thoughtful way. https://archive.org/details/youtube-dBtmzY5gcO8
I do sympathize with this but I have friends not on FB and as a friend of them , if I see something on FB (like an event invite) one of us know to relay via text to them. Maybe my situation is unique ?
You don't hate facebook. You hate people who think facebook = life.
Of course, there is also snapchat, tumblr and instagram.</OnlyHalfSarcasm>
If you're concerned about "consign[ing] my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation" but don't want to miss out on seminal life events, why not just maintain a Facebook account without ever posting to it?
As long as you remain friends with people you need to keep in touch with, but never post anything or fill out your personal details, you will not be giving up any privacy or missing out.
As long as you remain friends with people you need to keep in touch with, but never post anything or fill out your personal details, you will not be giving up any privacy or missing out.
They'll still know where you live, where you work, what devices you use, what places you travel to, what hotels you stay in, what times you're usually awake, who your friends are, which friends you're more interested in, what invitations you respond to, what invitations you ignore, which of your friends are interested in you, what your hobbies and interests are, what texts you send on messenger, what other websites you visit on the internet, ...
Should I go on?
Should I go on?
Don't use the app and they won't know most of that.
Also don’t let your friends and family use it, block their Pixel, don’t let them buy brokered info on you, don’t let anyone else with Facebook on your WiFi... and do this all perfectly 100% of the time.
They can't track you if you're not using their app on your phone. Use a sandboxed version (there are many) and it's not running and tracking you other than when you're actually using it. You can also sandbox it on your computer if you like, but there are many privacy blockers that will keep them from tracking you all over the web if you want to just use it in your regular browser.
You do give up privacy just by having a profile on facebook. It makes it easy to tie your browsing habits to your account, even if you are logged out. See previous discussion : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694451
This is why I only check Facebook using Chrome, on my home computer, using Firefox for everything else (with ads/trackers etc blocked, obviously). And of course I've never installed any facebook apps on my phone. I have checked mbasic.facebook.com from my phone a couple times, in an incognito window; that seemed like it was probably a reasonable level of risk.
Naive. Facebook does more than just passively let you fill out surveys, with their Pixel and snooping on your texts and contacts being just a couple of examples.
Could you elaborate? I'm concerned about these things myself, so I already don't use the Facebook app on my phone. What else can they collect?
Every website you visit that has a Facebook beacon on it. They collect this even if you're not a Facebook user.
I've been aware of this for a while but haven't done anything about it, but since you mentioned it I might as well ask: Is there an easy way to block this beacon? Is it something an adblocker would block by default?
Most adblockers include a list that blocks those beacons by default, such as EasyPrivacy or Fanboy’s Social Blocking List.
> I feel that my only real choices are to either A. Get with the program and embrace the dominant protocols of society...
Um, yes? That's literally what bring a part of a society is about. I'm not thrilled that Facebook has woven itself so deeply into our society, but if you're not on it, it's likely you'll be missing out on some things. Many of those things you may not care about, but unfortunately for some, like the death of a dear friend, you will care.
Um, yes? That's literally what bring a part of a society is about. I'm not thrilled that Facebook has woven itself so deeply into our society, but if you're not on it, it's likely you'll be missing out on some things. Many of those things you may not care about, but unfortunately for some, like the death of a dear friend, you will care.
I haven't used Facebook for years (deleted my account as much as is possible). I'm lucky though because I have a wife on Facebook who lets me knom when family events occur.
[deleted]
Sorry, but for the most part this sounds stupid. You're hating a widespread method of communication because it doesn't work for you _when you're not using it_. That's like complaining that no one text messages you if you never opted in to owning a phone.
Yeah, and it's really baffling that someone who is a self described "introvert," who goes years without speaking to people they consider close friends, is upset they didn't get an invite to a high school reunion!?!? Why would someone like that want to attend a high school reunion in the first place?
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.
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 without an event to go to, it's difficult to force themselves out into the world?
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.
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 hate that, if I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events. Not being on Facebook is sort of like not having a cellphone. Sure, me and a small number of weirdos can opt out, but we are increasingly disadvantaged by it.
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.
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.
There's a huge leap between using the platform and giving them all of your data. Be restrictive around what you put up, and the permissions you give it. Sure, it's some measure of personal involvement, but it's necessary for the most basic of access.
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.
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.
It’s not about what you share. See responses to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675819
So that person calls himself/herself an "introvert" (I hate when ppl justify their lifestyle with that word btw) then complains than he never got to class reunion. Then throws some stronger motives about his friend suicide yet griefs more about inability to "say goodbye" or "i feel responsible and hurt".
And overall says about facebook hate but, like, it is just a platform, a technology; it all starts and ends up with people, so he'd better say "I hate people but want their attention but don't want to tell 'em that by owning a facebook profile".
And overall says about facebook hate but, like, it is just a platform, a technology; it all starts and ends up with people, so he'd better say "I hate people but want their attention but don't want to tell 'em that by owning a facebook profile".
The point being, it is just as likely that the writer of this post wasn’t left out any more than he would have been in the past. What has possibly changed is that a funeral lightly attended by only a few in the past could now reach the many. In the past, he would have missed hearing about the death and would have missed the funeral. In the present, the same thing happened but now feels left out.
It’s a benefit to the mother who lost her child, but a detriment to the friend who feels left behind.