Thread: I suppose I have to join facebook, sigh Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025160
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
A friend has been talking vaguely about throwing a 40th birthday party for himself. The birth date is tomorrow.
Today he asked me who is bringing a birthday cake. Huh, how would I know? Did you decide to have a party? What time? Is it pot luck?
He told me I was coordinating the pot luck. Huh? I didn't know there was an actual party, or how many are invited - 6 or 20 or 100?
He said he put the invitation on facebook. I said I'm not on facebook, send it to me. He said it's on facebook. I said copy paste it into email and send it to me. He said it's on Facebook.
He finally read the invitation to me. I still don't know why he thinks I should be coordinating the pot luck, no one was told to coordinate with me, I have no way of knowing who is coming and no way to contact them if he did tell me names.
I suppose I have to buy a birthday cake, since no one is coordinating the pot luck and it's not the sort of thing people bring to a birthday party unasked.
Mostly I guess I'm seeing that some people use facebook not as one means of communication but as the only means. And whether or not you are on facebook, you are expected to know what the posted there.
Are others of you running into that?
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Yes and it's a *%$#@*&!! nuisance!
I am on Facebook but rarely go there, perhaps once or twice a week for just a few moments then I sign out whereas some people seem to spend all their life with it on in the background so they can react immediate;y if someone posts something, however trivial.
I keep on talking about coming off entirely but there are some people who are important to me and it is our only regular point of contact - were it not for those few I would be out of it. I often wish I'd never joined.
Don't join! Tell you friend that you are not on Facebook and you have no intention of joining and that if he wants you to know something he will have to e-mail or phone or even write a letter!
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I held out for a long time, then caved in and joined FB over a year ago.
It hasn't been quite what I thought it would be. Despite the privacy settings, it still feels very public - someone posts something, you reply, but your reply is probably seen by friends of your friend, who you may not know anything about; if one of them posts to it, it gets spread further. Your privacy settings, in essence, depend on others.
The Like button has pretty much killed off online conversation, and Facebook has pretty much killed off email, which in turn killed off letter writing, so although you are on Facebook and linked to your friends you may find that there's altogether less communication than you had before you joined, just scraps of light-hearted banter (or more likely, a short throwaway comment with a lot of Likes) more than anything. It's often also very slow to load. There are some people on there I wouldn't have any contact with at all otherwise, but I don't usually stay very long on it now.
Also, if you send a message to someone you aren't already FB friends with, it can often end up in their Spam box and they never see it, which can make getting in touch with old friends problematic - assuming their settings permit messages from strangers in the first place.
So - not all it's cranked up to be, IMO. If people are rude enough to insist that you have to join so you can see their invitation, that's their problem. Courtesy costs nothing and neither does a quick cut-and-paste into email.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Thank you Ariel, courtesy is the word I was looking for - to insist the only way of communicating something is via FB is plain RUDE!
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
Shouldn't rants be in Hell? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by cross eyed bear (# 13977) on
:
That's a naff excuse, expecting you to have seen something on facebook when you're not a member. If the birthday child created an invitation on facebook, he also had to pick out the people he was inviting. He would be aware that you hadn't received the invitation, because your name wasn't among the invitees.
This is just an example of someone who doesn't know how to use facebook properly, if he really expected you to see an invitation to which he hadn't - couldn't - give you access.
I personally love facebook, but it isn't for everyone. I live in a different country to many good friends of mine and use it as one of the ways of keeping in touch. It's also excellent for casual chats with friends. Its use does depend a lot on your own situation and that of your friends. I'm of a generation where enough friends are online to make it worthwhile, and in a situation where i'm glad I have this tool to transcend borders. I also have the techie know how to stay on top of the privacy settings, which are there, but are not super intuitive.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I have recently un-joined facebook.
It wasn't intentional. My computer crashed and had to be wiped. My facebook account was set up with a long ago defunct email address and I have completely forgotten the password. So I'm locked out!
I decided not to re-join or make huge efforts to get back, because I don't miss it at all - and have gained back a lost 15 minutes every day!
(Which I now add to my gardening time ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I am on facebook, and it is fine for me, it helps me to keep in touch with people, and that is important.
But to assume someone is there and has read the invites etc on there? Arrogant and rude most definitely.
Don't join facebook, explain to your "friend" that if he wants you to do something, he needs to communicate with you and ask you if you are prepared to do that. Given that the day is tomorrow, you would be quite reasonable in saying "no". then he can sort his own birthday party, instead of enjoying the day.
Posted by daisydaisy (# 12167) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I am on facebook, and it is fine for me, it helps me to keep in touch with people, and that is important.
But to assume someone is there and has read the invites etc on there? Arrogant and rude most definitely.
Don't join facebook, explain to your "friend" that if he wants you to do something, he needs to communicate with you and ask you if you are prepared to do that. Given that the day is tomorrow, you would be quite reasonable in saying "no". then he can sort his own birthday party, instead of enjoying the day.
Totally
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Still holding out.
Remember, for any business in which you do not pay for the service, you are not the client but the product.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
I did join facebook a few years back but after a couple of weeks, decided to forget it - I never use it now. If I don't respond to a facebook message and the person can't be bothered to contact me directly, then perhaps there's no relationship there anyway.
Interestingly, someone was telling me the other day that her (early 20s) daughter and friend - who has moved to another country - don't use facebook or e-mail but write letters to each other, as it feels more special.
M.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have recently un-joined facebook.
It wasn't intentional. My computer crashed and had to be wiped. My facebook account was set up with a long ago defunct email address and I have completely forgotten the password. So I'm locked out!
I decided not to re-join or make huge efforts to get back, because I don't miss it at all - and have gained back a lost 15 minutes every day!
(Which I now add to my gardening time )
so that's where you went.
I have nothing terribly useful to add to this rant. FB is super useful to my various community event coordinating duties. I get a lot done. plus, people share road and weather and wildlife and aurora and earthquake reports. It was indispensable last year when I was coordinating flood information, more reliable than the radio or any other system for getting information out fast.
and yes, I'm aware I'm the product, and I'm well aware that "privacy" is baloney. I act accordingly.
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
He told me I was coordinating the pot luck. Huh? I didn't know there was an actual party, or how many are invited - 6 or 20 or 100?
I think the issue here is less facebook and more your friend being unbelievably rude.
I do use facebook - its advantages outweigh its disadvantages for me but if that changes I'll happily stop using it. It is good for organising social stuff and you do have to make sure that people not on facebook aren't left out. But, as said above, if your friend sent out invitations on facebook, he will have known that you were not included in them, so how he thought you would be organising the thing is beyond me.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'm not on FB. Have heard too many horrible things about it and other social media sites, from day 1.
I hate the lack of privacy, with all the ways that plays out: unwanted people reading posts, FB gathering more and more info, people tracking you down, the creepy stuff people put online, etc. Plus my various friends would likely not mix well. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Oh, and I don't like that you're supposed to use your real name--the rules say they'll drop you if they find out you haven't.
And I don't see why everything needs to be in one place. E.g., the invitation mentioned in the OP, coupons and contests from businesses, etc.
I'm happy with e-mail. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If I were facing surgery or something, I might consider as minimal a FB presence as possible; but I'd rather notify a few trusted friends by e-mail, and have them pass info on to various groups.
{Tangent-- That having been said, I'm trying to figure out a good way to set up some kind of personal info drop site, where (if something happened to me) friends could get in touch with each other. I don't have family to speak of, nor a significant other, nor kids. And I've had bad experiences with offline friends meeting each other, things going terribly wrong, and me losing them. Not anxious to repeat that. My docs know how to get in touch with a couple of people; I have more detailed info in my pocket datebook (including a pointer to the Ship); and I'm working on setting up several USB sticks of ICE emergency info to keep on my key ring and in my various bags. Don't want to derail this thread. But if someone has another idea, please feel free to PM me. Thanks!}
Anyway, the friend mentioned in the OP should've noticed you weren't on his list. Duh!
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I have re-established close links with an old school friend through Facebook, we communicate regularly through that medium and have shared many laughs together. But she still managed to send me a proper invitation to her wedding through the post.
There's a time when Facebook is very convenient and appropriate, but there's a time when it really shouldn't take priority. I am staggered that someone should consider it appropriate to expect someone to organise a supper through Facebook alone. How rude!
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
FB is like a microwave; it does some things well, and others badly, or not at all.
It's not a magic social organiser: to do that, you have to identify specific people, communicate one-to-one, enable discussion etc. so, if Belle's friend thinks 'putting it on FaceBook' constitutes planning, then he's lazy or stupid or both.
FB works well for me in keeping me in touch with a fairly small group of people whose lives are of genuine interest to me, and with whom I share particular interests.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
FB is super useful to my various community event coordinating duties. I get a lot done. plus, people share road and weather and wildlife and aurora and earthquake reports. It was indispensable last year when I was coordinating flood information, more reliable than the radio or any other system for getting information out fast.
In all of the above, you appear to be using FB semi-professionally. I could just about live with that.
What I really don't like (apart from privacy issues) is the prospect of social relationships being defined by a corporation. Anyone who doubts this is being business driven should google current managementspeak about corporate social networks. Business is aiming to feed off the natural dynamic of friendship for profit and monetize our intimate feelings and emotions.
Besides, social interaction is being broken up into binary categories such as 'friend/unfriend' 'like/unlike'.
quote:
and yes, I'm aware I'm the product, and I'm well aware that "privacy" is baloney. I act accordingly.
I'm sure you do, but online privacy is amazingly difficult to do even when you're trying.
Oh, and get off my lawn.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
On the plus side there are no hosts to complain about party threads or one-liners. Plus I can plank anybody I want to.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, this is a rant about FB--but your friend is throwing a party in honor of himself? And expects the guests to do all the organizing/ shopping/ cooking? And saddles YOU unasked (just commanded) with the job of organizing it? And then bitches when you haven't received his not-an-invitation?
Someone needs to go all Miss Manners on his ass.
[ 13. April 2013, 11:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
I often do plank some people. Amazingly, not unlike SoF, few notice.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cross eyed bear:
This is just an example of someone who doesn't know how to use facebook properly.
It's also an example of someone who doesn't know that people over the age of six don't throw birthday parties for themselves. Even under six, it's the parents who throw it for the child in the child's name.
I was on Facebook for about a month and couldn't stand the vapid banter. I disabled my account, and then deleted it, and have no desire to go back.
If someone has something to say to me, they can see me in person, phone me, or e-mail me. And vice-versa. Otherwise it's just probably not worth saying in the first place.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Round here, loads of 20/30 yr olds have left FB.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
Where have they gone instead?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think some of the younger people are more into twitter these days. I prefer twitter for social interaction actually, although it does take some time to get into.
Anyhow, what is the name of your friend, then we can link to him on facebook, and tell him what an piss-taking, arrogant, fuckwit he is.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
... the person can't be bothered to contact me directly, then perhaps there's no relationship there anyway.
I'm having ambivalent thoughts this morning.
1. People who don't have email tend to be left out because it's extra work to make phone calls after clicking "send" on the group email, and if the email had an attachment like a chart or a photo, then you can't even telephone but also have to print it out and find an envelope and mail it. My acquaintances who don't have email say "just call me" or "just bring me the chart" The extra work of the relationship falls entirely on the ones who do use email. So these uncomputered people fall to the edges of relationship groups.
To Facebook people, it's extra effort to stay in relationship with you, extra work to have to resend what they already posted. So they do so reluctantly, and after while you are thought of as too work because contact with you is more work than with the other 40 put together.
2. But also - seems to me posting an invitation or emailing a group is not the same "I want *you*" as a personal contact invitation.
This particular person said 5 have RSVPed they are coming to the party, but he has 30 local contacts on Facebook and wants me to provide enough plates forks etc for all 30 in case they come. The impersonality is striking, the lack of connections, there's been no discussion, no 2-way communication with each of the people invited. Just a hope or assumption some who haven't bothered to respond will come.
3. "I put my info out there, others will take the effort to come to *my* page and see what *I've* posted and respond to me" comes across to me as arrogant, but I suppose they would say expecting to be personally contacted is arrogant.
I've had this conversation with a friend who refuses to have email, says failure to call her with group info is just arrogance. I said it take more time to make one phone call than to send an email to the other 40. But maybe in a way she's right?
A call is two way connection, human interaction instead of just names on an email list. Maybe the belief I can send you something impersonal (group email, Facebook posting) and expect a personal response (showing up at my party and bringing a food for the pot luck) is arrogant?
I'm struggling with concepts here. Never was good at social connections, very possible I don't understand any of what I'm puzzling about.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
I think this might be related. I dislike Facebook, and have never been a part of it. Yesterday, I was at some sort of party, and someone I didn't know very well took pictures. Would it be appropriate to ask her if she was planning to put my picture on her Facebook page?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
This particular person said 5 have RSVPed they are coming to the party, but he has 30 local contacts on Facebook and wants me to provide enough plates forks etc for all 30 in case they come.
Please tell us (and him) that (1) you are not going and (2) even if you were, you would not set his table for him.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, this is a rant about FB--but your friend is throwing a party in honor of himself?
Those of us who live alone throw our own birthday parties or don't have birthday celebrations. That's the only choices. Shouldn't single people celebrate, too?
Took me years of wondering why I never had a birthday party before I saw that the parties I was invited to were all the husband planning one for the wife and vv, which is really no different than throwing a party for yourself.
Most birthday parties I've been invited to are at a restaurant and each guest pays their own food/drink bill. Pot luck is easier on those with very limited budgets.
If you do a party at home it has to be pot luck because you have no idea these days how many are coming. My first big party I invited 200, 47 said yes, 13 came. The most recent one 60 said yes, 30 came (including two of those who said no). The first one I provided all the food and had more left over than I could store even after sending people home with lots. That's when I switched to pot luck.
He may have assumed I was running the pot luck because when he said he couldn't afford to feed everyone (he recently lost a job) I suggested he do it pot luck. That was weeks ago. My suggesting it may have morphed in his memory into "she's running it" - the disconnect is knowing I'm not on facebook and don't know most of his friends.
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
I thought the whole point of "pot luck" is you don't know who is bringing what. If so, isn't "organizing the pot luck" an oxymoron?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Those of us who live alone throw our own birthday parties or don't have birthday celebrations. That's the only choices. Shouldn't single people celebrate, too?
It's far from the only choice. You throw a birthday party for your friends, who in turn throw one for you. Or else are they really friends?
quote:
He said he couldn't afford to feed everyone (he recently lost a job).
Then he has no business throwing a party in the first place. Or he throws it at a restaurant, where he can nibble off everyone else's plate if he can't afford to order a meal for himself. For that matter, if he's the birthday boy, his friends should be treating him anyway at a restaurant get-together they are throwing in his honor. Sheesh!
Bottom line, you are under no obligation to furnish plates and cutlery for him. If as few people show up as he suspects might, then he can use his china and silverware rather than paper and plastic. Or does he expect you to be his kitchen maid as well?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
He said he couldn't afford to feed everyone (he recently lost a job).
Then he has no business throwing a party in the first place.
Why?
The vast majority of the parties I attend are pot luck. I'm off to a bloke's housewarming tonight, it's potluck. 'Bring a bottle' too.
So the party costs nothing to the person who throws it (except time for clearing up afterwards) and good fun is had by all. This means there are plenty of parties in our social circle.
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on
:
Throwing one's own birthday party can feel a bit weird, but it's commonly done among my circle of friends. The social contract essentially requires one of us to nag the upcoming birthday person, saying, "Hey, we'd like to celebrate your birthday--are you planning anything?". Then, Upcoming Birthday Person feels empowered to throw event, which would probably not be planned for the person by friends because no one of us would take ownership of that. It's not like in a partnership where clearly the significant other is the one who'd take the lead: it's a case of everyone feeling warmly towards birthday person and wanting to celebrate, but no one person other than the birthday person being in a position to coordinate everything.
I feel you, Belle Ringer, on not being sure of the subtleties and requirements of adult social interaction. But this situation, as you describe it, is a pretty egregious one--boy can get his own darn plates, and he ain't gonna need 30 of them.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
This particular person said 5 have RSVPed they are coming to the party, but he has 30 local contacts on Facebook and wants me to provide enough plates forks etc for all 30 in case they come.
How much is he paying you for all this waitress service?
Is this, by any chance, being held at your place?
Give in on this and you give him a licence to walk all over you, not just this time, but next time. Tell him (if you can't bring yourself to be rude) that it's too short notice, you have other arrangements, you wish him well but you won't be coming, and then just end the call and leave it at that. It's not your party, it's not your problem. I wouldn't waste two minutes on someone who treated me like this. It's not going to be a reciprocal arrangement - he won't put himself out for you (just imagine doing the same thing to him and see how far he'd go with making the arrangements).
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
The social contract essentially requires one of us to nag the upcoming birthday person, saying, "Hey, we'd like to celebrate your birthday--are you planning anything?". Then, Upcoming Birthday Person feels empowered to throw event, which would probably not be planned for the person by friends because no one of us would take ownership of that.
Such a social contract would send Miss Amanda directly to her smelling salts, after inhaling copious amounts of which she'd scarcely be able to gasp, "Why, no, but if you'd like to plan something I'd be thrilled."
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Perhaps this guy has communication difficulties eg. a mild form of Autism - sometimes they find it easier to communicate on FB than in real life. I recall someone who organised a reunion through FB (rather badly) then complained when not many people turned up. You could see the writing on the wall from afar off, but maybe he just couldn't help it because it was part of his personality to not give people enough important details. And not answering cautious inquiries, but misinterpreting them as definite acceptance.
How far does he live from you - within popping around for a friendly chat distance, or not? You might be able to find out more, face to face.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
If anyone wants my presence, they have to invite me personally.
I will never, never join Facebook or any other of its pathetic derivatives.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
Not sure if its a Pond thing, but over here in UK it seems quite normal to throw a party for oneself. The exception is when its a 'surprise party' when of course someone else has to organise it (and run the risk that the surprisee will hate them for it).
This applies even for married people. Or it did in my case. While I was married, I threw parties for both my 40th and 50th birthdays. For the latter I paid for hire of a hall at considerable expense (hence asked that the guests bring food on a pot luck basis to keep costs down). The 40th party was held at home, so I provided all the food. I don't think this is particularly unusual. OK I enlisted a couple of friends to help, but having the party, the RSVPs etc were all organised by myself.
Re Facebook, I'm definitely (and very stubbornly) in the 'I don't do it' camp.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Different social sets function differently.
Marrieds give parties for themselves by having the spouse issue the invitation, why is that socially correct but singles have to find a friend not in their huseholdto do all the work of organizing inviting and pestering to get head count and pre-cleaning and cleaning up?
If I had a friend willing to work that hard to give me a birthday party I'd marry him or her. :-)
Pot lucks unless there are a lot of people usually have a bit of coordination. I went to one with zero coordination, 18 of 20 people brought dessert, for lunch. Desserts are usually the most fun to make and the easiest to prepare ahead.
Especially with just 6 people, the host wants a hint of who's bringing what so s/he knows what's missing that needs to be filled in. I go to a lot of informal pot lucks, a dozen people informally rotating which four volunteers bring something, we do it who's going to bring a salad, a main dish, a dessert.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Facebook is the next techno step in an endless chain: indoor plumbing, electricity, telephone, banking card, having a computer at all, connecting the computer to the internet by dial-up, getting a mobile/cell phone, connecting computer to internet via highspeed, joining a forum like ship of fools.
There is no need to be paranoid, no need to be carmugeonly about it. I certainly recall when people refused to get telephones, and we found it rather easy to just leave them out. Social communication requires effort on the part of all sides. Facebook has been wonderful for some of the elderly in terms of keeping track of the doings of grand and great grand children. If you need a lesson, get one of those to help you. But don't avoid it. You don't have to use it beyond this occasion and you do not have to have your privacy all violated etc. Just use it to keep in touch with people.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
This applies even for married people. Or it did in my case. While I was married, I threw parties for both my 40th and 50th birthdays.
Me too - it's the best way to avoid a surprise party, which I would HATE!!
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
I throw my own birthday parties. Because that way I invite whom I want, I get the food I want, and we do what I want. No surprises.
I also totally plank 'friends' who are rude and inconsiderate. Oh, you didn't ask me if I'd run your party, but just told everyone I would? That's nice. I'm not doing it because my back does not say "Welcome".
I'm on FB, alas. Because I am single, I live alone, and my mother worries. If I don't post once a day she starts calling. If I don't answer the phone (because I, you know, don't like talking on the phone and often have the ringer off), she starts calling my friends.
[ 13. April 2013, 18:32: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It's not that you can't have a party, and if you eant, it can be on your birthday, why not?
What good manners requires is that you NOT announce that said party is in honor of your own birthday (though if someone inquires, you can sheepishly admit to the date), and you may not make demands of your guests (because they are guests, and you are the host, with full responsibility to see to their comfort). Of course, if someone volunteers, that's a different case. Nor may you charge them, or expect them to pick up the cost in any way, even for their own meals--unless this event is clearly marked as a cooperative party from the outset, in which case everybody is both host and guest. Nor may you expect presents of them--which is a major reason why you never throw a party that is announced to be in honor of yourself. It looks greedy.
Your friend is screwing up by mixing the two kinds of events, the cooperative party and the traditional hosted party. He is also demanding the prerogatives both of the organizer (I hesitate to say "host," as he's putting all the responsibilities on you) and of the honored guest. Sounds like a fiasco.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Still holding out.
Remember, for any business in which you do not pay for the service, you are not the client but the product.
Word.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I have nothing terribly useful to add to this rant. FB is super useful to my various community event coordinating duties. I get a lot done. plus, people share road and weather and wildlife and aurora and earthquake reports. It was indispensable last year when I was coordinating flood information, more reliable than the radio or any other system for getting information out fast.
and yes, I'm aware I'm the product, and I'm well aware that "privacy" is baloney. I act accordingly.
Fine, be all sensible with your usage.
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Round here, loads of 20/30 yr olds have left FB.
It is no longer cool when Great Gran uses it.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I think this might be related. I dislike Facebook, and have never been a part of it. Yesterday, I was at some sort of party, and someone I didn't know very well took pictures. Would it be appropriate to ask her if she was planning to put my picture on her Facebook page?
Yes. If you do not wish your image posted, ask.
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps this guy has communication difficulties eg. a mild form of Autism -
ISTM, Facebook is a form of Autsim. Whilst people may be in contact with greater numbers of others, the quality, content and nuance of communication is greatly reduced.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think some of the younger people are more into twitter these days. I prefer twitter for social interaction actually, although it does take some time to get into.
And twitter is ADHD.
Every damn thing on the net wants to add a social network component. ISTM, they reduce communicants to the equivalent of hormonal teenagers.
We have the technology to communicate easily and quickly with people across the globe, to share ideas, engage in debate. And how do we use it? Kitten videos and harassment.*
---------
Social Media Venn Diagram
*I would argue kitten videos are harassment, but YMMV.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
You can usually notice quickly if the item is important news or just a 'helloooo I've seen a cute kitty' pic. and scroll quickly past if necessary. If nobody actually clicks 'like' on the trite posts, maybe they'll take the hint (or if not, keep scrolling past).
I like to be quite-good-friends with a large assortment of people, so it is worth the risk.
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Facebook is the next techno step in an endless chain: indoor plumbing, electricity, telephone, banking card, having a computer at all, connecting the computer to the internet by dial-up, getting a mobile/cell phone, connecting computer to internet via highspeed, joining a forum like ship of fools.
I disagree. Facebook is one company. All it would allow me to do if I registered with it is interact in particular ways with other people who have signed up to that one company.
For everything else in your list (except SoF, which is more of a club than a company) I chose my provider if/when I opt in. My bank card does not restrict me to only making and receiving payments with others who use the same bank. My telephone provider enables me to call my friends on every landline and mobile provider in the world. Similarly with my ISP.
Plus what Eutychus said about being the product.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rufiki:
All it would allow me to do if I registered with it is interact in particular ways with other people who have signed up to that one company.
If that was all it did, then it wouldn't be so bad.
However, now, many websites offer you the option of "login with Facebook". In other words, you gain enhanced access to websites via your Facebook identity. In return for this enhanced experience, you effectively hand over your entire personal history as recorded on Facebook to that website.
The concern here is not so much those unfortunate photos of you at some teenage party, rather it's your demographic, network of friends and history of what sort of ads you've clicked on. That in turn will affect what gets suggested to you in your browsing experience (of course this is already true with Google but at least I can be a bit more selective about what I put in, and I wasn't simply thinking I was having a bit of chit-chat with my friends).
In other words, whereas you might be thinking you are surfing through the borderless and uncharted world of the whole wide Internet, you are more likely being led down a retail mall unawares, and seeing more of what business thinks you might like to see.
And please get off my lawn.
Posted by scuffleball (# 16480) on
:
It's interesting to note the attitudes of different churches towards FB. Our organist was a long holdout against FB until recently - he became leader of the evangelical community in this organization and was thus expected to have FB. (Said community had been pestering him about it for a while with varying degrees of friendliness - the community is largely organized over FB and they keep in touch there during the vacation.) Also they use it to share prayer requests.
The liturgical tradition - especially its contemplative element - seems more suspicious of Socialnetworking, like Lucy Winkett's book "Sound is our Wound" encouraging people to give up Socialnetworking for Lent. I think it's all to do with contemporary society's attitude to "noise" and "silence" in the proverbial sense of the word. Human beings seem to have a natural desire to fill their mind with distractions and FB provides that. I'd go further - it actively discourages people from switching off their distractions and thinking. It is good to take time away from that noise to think.
I spent a month in Taizé without phone, email, FB and I didn't find I missed it. Of course, it was supplanted by a real, meaningful community, and the thrice-daily services were always full of silence. A lot of the new volunteers were quite upset to be told not to have their phones on them. My contactbrother said that he was worried people might think Taizé a cult for this.
However in the real world I find FB and email necessary to organize meetings and social activities with people in the first place, and to thus facilitate such community.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by cross eyed bear:
This is just an example of someone who doesn't know how to use facebook properly.
It's also an example of someone who doesn't know that people over the age of six don't throw birthday parties for themselves. Even under six, it's the parents who throw it for the child in the child's name.
Really? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have had a b'day party had I not done some organization myself, although my friends very kindly went above and beyond that. I didn't use facebook to do so, as it happens; one of my close friends still holds out, and another only has an account to avoid missing out on events organized through it and to organize such events. (He ran a voluntary organization at the time, and is now running another.) However we have an internal mailing network (a sort of cross between emails and chatrooms - you can send people messages and they appear in threads, but you can also set up your own sort of "private board") which functions not dissimilarly. In fact I'm inclined to think the OP has the exact opposite problem; his/her friend expected him/her to do organize the party for him rather than organizing it himself!
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
... I don't like that you're supposed to use your real name--the rules say they'll drop you if they find out you haven't.
IMO one of the big mistakes about the early 2000s Internet education was we were told not to use our real names online. The thing about FB not being anonymous is that psychologically is that it means one you're held accountable for your actions. This helps tone down people getting overblown on the internet. Of course, people must still be taught only to share things with people they've actually met, and preferably those who they see on a regular basis.
Indeed, as soon as you talk about your personal circumstances online you're not really anonymous anymore anyway. If someone who knew me in real life happened upon my profile on this chatroom they could easily work out that it was me, as I have talked about my personal circumstances here. I haven't purposefully hid myself and I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.
The creepy thing is when you "bump into" people on line that you know well IRL - one of the creepyest things was when I found a comment left on a youtube video and thought "haaaang on, that must be so and so" (who was one of my closest friends at the time). It was the only Youtube video of a particularly obscure mass setting that we happened to be singing at that time in the same choir though...
Other than this very chatroom, I'm not in any chatroom with people I haven't met in person, and most of those chatrooms are with people I habitually meet or habitually met and no longer see.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps this guy has communication difficulties eg. a mild form of Autism -
ISTM, Facebook is a form of Autsim. Whilst people may be in contact with greater numbers of others, the quality, content and nuance of communication is greatly reduced.
[/QB]
This isn't an intrinsically bad thing, is it? It just means you have to remember what FB - and instant messaging in general - is and isn't good for though. I think it's not good to talk about very critical, personal, sensitive or argumentative issues by email because people's inhibitions are lowered when talking online and you can easily get too angry with people when talking online in a way you wouldn't in person. This is also because in former times it took considerably more effort to send a letter because it had to be written by hand or typewriter and you had to pay to post it whereas now information is cheap.
I find even phoning people or videophoning is better than IM for these things. I had a friend who would often have very long conversations by SMS or FB about very sensitive issues, and I felt somewhat uncomfortable about this. I did offer to set up a videophone on her computer, but she dodged the subject. I suspect it is because she still lives with her parents and would not like to be overheard on the phone.
Also, I made the mistake of writing a verbose political FB message the other day. Yes, about Thatcher's death. It was nuanced and not melodramatic in any way, but FB just wasn't the appropriate venue for it. My friends called me out on doing this despite having told others not to.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think some of the younger people are more into twitter these days. I prefer twitter for social interaction actually, although it does take some time to get into.
And twitter is ADHD.
[/QB]
Round here, Twitter is essentially for hacks. (Journalistic/Activist/Political)
[ 13. April 2013, 21:18: Message edited by: scuffleball ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
2. But also - seems to me posting an invitation or emailing a group is not the same "I want *you*" as a personal contact invitation.
Quite. And for, say, announcing that you'll be in the pub on Friday if anyone wants to drop by, a general announcement is fine. That's not the same as an invitation.
I do use facebook, although not to make social arrangements. I use it mostly to share photos of things we've done with family and friends. It doesn't replace writing letters, but it does make it easier to keep in some kind of contact.
ETA: All my facebook "friends" are people who are actual friends. Some are friends from college who I haven't seen for the last decade or two, due to living in different countries, but they are all people who I wouldn't hesitate to put up for a few days if they wanted to come and visit.
[ 13. April 2013, 21:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's not that you can't have a party, and if you eant, it can be on your birthday, why not?
What good manners requires is that you NOT announce that said party is in honor of your own birthday (though if someone inquires, you can sheepishly admit to the date)...
Among my friends it's perfectly acceptable to throw your own birthday party and to be quite clear that that's what you're doing. For her 60th birthday, one friend rented the church hall, hired a caterer and a band, and asked that in lieu of gifts everyone bring socks to donate to the church's shower program for the homeless.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
Yeah, throwing yourself a party (even potluck if you're of limited means) isn't the problem.
Appointing someone else to be the organizer and then telling everyone but that person is, however, a huge problem. Double Rude points if the organizer didn't actually get invited due to choice of medium.
Facebook isn't the problem.
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Appointing someone else to be the organizer and then telling everyone but that person is, however, a huge problem. Double Rude points if the organizer didn't actually get invited due to choice of medium.
Yes, quite bizzare. Almost unbelievable.
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on
:
Oh Sine, I love you.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
I had a friend who would often have very long conversations by SMS or FB about very sensitive issues, and I felt somewhat uncomfortable about this. I did offer to set up a videophone on her computer, but she dodged the subject. I suspect it is because she still lives with her parents and would not like to be overheard on the phone.
some of us just hate talking on the phone. things like skype make it worse.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Facebook is the next techno step in an endless chain: indoor plumbing, electricity, telephone, banking card, having a computer at all, connecting the computer to the internet by dial-up, getting a mobile/cell phone, connecting computer to internet via highspeed, joining a forum like ship of fools.
That's what I've been wondering, is facebook something that has become the default for social connections.
A few years ago I had to get a cell phone because a critical mass of people were texting instead of calling, most friends no have landline and some have said "Something's wrong with your phone, I tried to text you but it wouldn't accept my text." But I can't carry a phone all the time, so I have to pay for both landline and cell, extra cost.
At one point answering machines were rare, but there came a time when I was annoyed at a friend who didn't have an answering machine, I had to call and re-call to get through instead of just leaving a message, and that was no longer a normal social expectation.
It's near the time when one must have a smartphone, people are increasingly using the phone for web-based notices and my stupid phone can't do handle it. Awful expensive!
One has to either keep up or drop out except for the few really good friends, because most people don't take the extra work to stay in contact with people who lack "normal" connections. They prefer people it's easy to be friends with.
If I were a "popular" person that people longed for opportunity to spend time, I could have my own rules, "I only respond to Morse code" and people would do it. But I'm not one of those magically popular people, if I want friends I have to be easy to contact.
Sigh.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, now, many websites offer you the option of "login with Facebook". In other words, you gain enhanced access to websites via your Facebook identity. In return for this enhanced experience, you effectively hand over your entire personal history as recorded on Facebook to that website.
Don't do it. I have never associated FB with anything. At most, you need to delete cookies to stop any risk. Second, don't click on ads, better still get a web browser extension that automatically blocks all of them. I never see ads either. [/qb][/quote]
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The concern here is not so much those unfortunate photos of you at some teenage party, rather it's your demographic, network of friends and history of what sort of ads you've clicked on. That in turn will affect what gets suggested to you in your browsing experience (of course this is already true with Google but at least I can be a bit more selective about what I put in, and I wasn't simply thinking I was having a bit of chit-chat with my friends).
You can actually join facebook with a variation of your name, like maybe firstname twice in a row. You can avoid all pictures, disallow all labelling (tagging), and simply follow far flung friends and family a bit more regularly. Having most relatives either in Europe or Asia, would have almost no otherwise contact.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In other words, whereas you might be thinking you are surfing through the borderless and uncharted world of the whole wide Internet, you are more likely being led down a retail mall unawares, and seeing more of what business thinks you might like to see.
It is very possible, but also very avoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And please get off my lawn.
Also off of my cloud. (Not a bad song that.)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
As to the party, if I cut out everyone who was a social klutz, I'd have to cut out myself.
Friend is under a lot of pressure right now - job loss, last remaining relative very ill, etc, and a nerdy personality that doesn't do social very well. Turns out when he emailed me "I need..." the list didn't mean "it's your job to provide," he meant "do you have some of these you can give me?" He was under stress and worded it poorly.
Only 6 guests meant he wasn't asking for a lot. I usually have some paper plates etc on hand.
We aren't great friends but with 6 saying yes, I figured 3 would show up. Going to parties is one way to meet new people. I met some delightful people in the few who came.
And I think milestones need to be celebrated. Poverty shouldn't mean "you don't deserve to celebrate a milestone" any more than homelessness means "you don't deserve a safe place to sleep." Inability to afford middle class standards is not a sin.
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
... your reply is probably seen by friends of your friend ...
What you might call the inverse of that caused my only "unfriending" of anyone. The person concerned was in a FB group that was of mutual interest (the Choral Evensong Appreciation thread ), but I didn't know him in RL.
When he started posting very unflattering comments about the professional abilities of a choral conductor who is a FB friend (and an acquaintance in RL) I decided I didn't want the RL acquaintance to have to see them, particularly if they were preceded with the words "friends with Piglet", so I not only "unfriended" the first bloke but blocked his comments as well.
Aside from that, I really quite enjoy FB - it's put me in touch with lots of people (especially old schoolfriends) who I'd long lost contact with, which is really rather nice.
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
Belle, it sounds as though the event was a good and valuable one; really pleased about that. Many of us (including those who didn't respond) thought, "What a jerk!"
But you knew him better than that. You've done something good for someone who is a bit of a "social klutz"; you can choose your moment to advise him why things may have gone a bit wrong and so ease a bit of his klutziness for the future.
Yay for you.
I echo that it's fine to organise parties for yourself, and to tell people that they're birthday parties, and to solicit appropriate contributions. When I've done that in the past I've received cards, but it hasn't had the intention or effect of encouraging presents.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I'd enjoy FB more if it wasn't so paralyzingly slow. I don't know what the problem is but it takes about 30 seconds or more to make any moves - load FB, wait for page to finish loading that you can scroll down (but don't scroll down to the bottom of the page because it will then try to load the previous instalment and freeze up again); try to click on something - and the Javascript options are desperately slow. I'd like to keep up with people's home pages but when you have to click on this, that and the other just to try to load the list of friends, wait a while in between, then try to load their pages, then struggle to leave a comment, I'm afraid I cut this short to what pops up in my feed only.
I tried to send someone a message last night and it took about 10 minutes, not including typing time (in fact as the screen froze, I had to quit, losing what I'd typed, reload and start again). It's a pain in the backside.
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on
:
Ariel, I don't think that is Facebook. I don't use Java and my Facebook pages load in less than 3 seconds. Yes, I just tested it so that I could count.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
Ariel, I suspect your problem is a browser issue. I work in libraries, where our public computers have an old version of IE at present, (currently waiting for Chrome to be rolled out to all sites) and we get complaints almost daily from customers about Facebook performance.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
I have the latest version of Opera, updated as recently as this morning. Admittedly, it's running on an ancient pc, but I don't have a problem of this magnitude with any other site.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
[posted then absent: apologies]
Where have these folk gone?
Mostly they seem to prefere meeting people face to face, texting is in as well. Kitchen chats, shared play sessions and meeting up for days out and generally doing one's best for/ with family and friends.
Around here there's a ground swell of Distrust when it comes to FB and photos, esp of families and children. One can talk about controls and privacy settings, but in some circles it all falls on deaf ears.
Posted by Catrine (# 9811) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Friend is under a lot of pressure right now - job loss, last remaining relative very ill, etc, and a nerdy personality that doesn't do social very well. Turns out when he emailed me "I need..." the list didn't mean "it's your job to provide," he meant "do you have some of these you can give me?" He was under stress and worded it poorly.
What a nice friend you are. I have to admit, my first thought was how rude, but thank goodness there are people like you around to support others when they are feeling under pressure.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
Facebook is a digital presence that shows you are alive and kicking to headhunters and the like if you are looking for work. If you DON'T have a profile, your digital presence is more limited. Plus, it's an extremely easy way to get a bunch of information out whenever somebody is going through a horrible time and needs support. For example, my ex-bf taking off in his car loaded with stuff out going out of state and breaking up with me via a text app. I just updated my status and viola, I had a bunch of people willing to put up my whinging, ready to give me support. It was a life-saver.
For me, I have a bunch of settings that are customized so I can spare those who may not want to hear so much of my facebook musings. I have the ability to make each post accessible to only a segment.
I know people that worked at Facebook. It's built in python (language) and teachers, head-hunters are NOT able to do searches on your facebook activity from your profile page. That is why some WINNERS made people seeking gainful employment hand over their passwords so they could rummage through their facebook (something being made illegal in many states now).
I think like anything, it involves discernment. And it is just another communication way.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Around here there's a ground swell of Distrust when it comes to FB and photos, esp of families and children. One can talk about controls and privacy settings, but in some circles it all falls on deaf ears.
I've been on forums where some people insisted everyone should always post with real name, and some out people just because they insist "no one should have to hide anything!" When you get someone with that attitude you can't keep their photos of you off facebook, and some delight in embarrassing photos as "amusing."
I avoid those people but you can't always escape them.
I'm suspecting privacy is dead anyway.
I recently installed a track blocking software, within two days it said it had blocked 500 efforts to track me. (I surf a lot.) Here on the ship it says one company is trying to track me - I'm guessing the ship itself for internal reasons, no big deal. On the IRS site (tax forms are due tomorrow) 3 companies are being blocked from tracking me.
On a "compare telephone plans "site, 15 are trying to track me, including three social sites. I'm not on any social sites but I suppose reading a public facebook page put their web bug on my computer.
For the past year(s) all these companies have been collecting data from me. Do I really believe they are *not* collecting all personal details they can, but just generalized interests? Ha.
On a Google docs page the software says "Google is one of several companies that secretly tracks you at millions of websites."
Meanwhile, should I really believe the track blocking software is a free gift, that they aren't collecting some data?
The trick now is probably not to figure out how to protect privacy from intruders, but how to live in a privacy-less world.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
One can talk about controls and privacy settings, but in some circles it all falls on deaf ears.
Privacy policies on Facebook are a massive as Facebook violate their own. They mean almost nothing.
[ 14. April 2013, 17:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
I don't quite understand how all the different sites are linked, but notice some strange connections. For example, I booked a hotel in Scotland through searching for a site on Google. Next I know, suggestions for Hotels in exactly the same area start appearing on my Facebook page. This is in addition to YouTube telling me (grouped according to my various gmail addresses) what my favourite videos are - some looked up through Google and some linked to through Facebook, and making suggestions based on these for future viewing. Big Brother, or what? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I don't quite understand how all the different sites are linked, but notice some strange connections. For example, I booked a hotel in Scotland through searching for a site on Google. Next I know, suggestions for Hotels in exactly the same area start appearing on my Facebook page. This is in addition to YouTube telling me (grouped according to my various gmail addresses) what my favourite videos are - some looked up through Google and some linked to through Facebook, and making suggestions based on these for future viewing. Big Brother, or what?
No it is not Big Brother, and it is about more than facebook. It is about little bits of code and script left on your computer when you visit a site. Facebook cookies will send a little msg to other sites, and they to Facebook. In fact, the same holds true to advertising on the Ship (if you are not set up to have them never appear). If you visit any site, info is left, then the info is shared with advertisers and other sites and advertisers.
Solution: delete the cookies, always. My browser is set to delete all cookies without fail when ever the browser is closed. You will never get tracked if you do that. You can get 'do not track' extensions for most browsers, and they certainly work. CBC story with some more info
A note about browsers. They are not all alike in terms of privacy. You should assume that if you use Google Chrome, google is tracking you unless you specifically turn tracking off. It also locates your physical location, i.e., you town or city and displays ads to you with that knowledge. How to prevent Google from tracking you. We don't know fully what Microsoft's Internet Explorer is doing with our info as far as I know. Firefox and Opera are better choices than IE for certain re not being tied to a corporation.
In my opinion, a better solution is not to use the Chrome version of the browser. But use the Iron version of Chrome. Chrome is based on Linux which requires that there be no copyright, and that all code be freely available. Thus you can browse with Iron, and it will behave exactly like Chrome but Google-free.
I could go on, and discuss why using Google for internet searching is also not the right thing and the better choices, but that's a little farther afield.
[coding]
[ 15. April 2013, 03:57: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
No, you don't have to join Facebook. Nobody has to join any social network. Set your own rules, make your boundaries clear, do what you feel comfortable with.
That said, because so many people do use Facebook to connect, you also need to accept that your choice not to use Facebook will cost you some connections. Every choice you make has consequences and any mature person should be able to accept that.
The friend mentioned in the OP was rude -- not by throwing himself a birthday party or inviting people to bring potluck, both of which are quite acceptable in my social circle (so, presumably, in others too). Nor was it rude of him to set it up as a FB event -- that is, again, the default way many people organize events now. The rudeness was a) in assuming a friend who is known to not be on FB would somehow know about it without an invitation, and b) expecting a friend to "organize" something without ever being asked to do so.
B is a social gaffe so huge that it's well outside the range of this discussion so let's concentrate on A. If you choose not to use a commonly-used technology, it will inconvenience you. It will also inconvenience others. One of my best friends, who frequently changes plans at the last minute, refuses to carry a cell phone. These two qualities make for a bad combination as I've been stuck at the movie theatre waiting for her and wishing there was some way to confirm she was on her way. But whatever. I'm aware of her preference and though it annoys me, it's not a huge deal to accommodate it.
Similarly, I had a friend who refused to be on Facebook or use any other social media (she used email somewhat reluctantly). She preferred face-to-face communication, and old-fashioned letters where that was not possible. I accepted this preference of hers but it made me sad that I didn't have as much regular contact with her as I did with old friends who were on FB.
If you read the "cancer sucks" thread in Hell you may have seen me post that this friend just died. And my contact with her in the last few years of her life was more sporadic than I would have liked it to be, and I did not know that her treatment was not progressing well or her prognosis was poor, until very near the end, too late for more than a single exchange of letters.
Should I have put myself out more, to write more snail-mail or even e-mail letters? Yes, of course I should have. I am kicking myself for that. WOULD I have been more likely to keep in touch, and know how serious her condition was, if she'd been on Facebook? Absolutely (assuming she was on Facebook and actually using it regularly). Her lack of social networking does not in any way excuse my failures as a friend. It only means that if she had used that technology, it would have been easier for me to do what I should have done anyway -- keep in touch -- and thus I'd have been more likely to do it.
Facebook, like any technology, does a few things well and lots of things badly (and can be abused by people wanting to do the wrong things). The one thing it does really well, that no other technology was really doing before, is make it possible for friends and family who live far apart to have the kind of casual, day-by-day contact that you normally can only have with people you see all the time. You don't always want, or have time for, a long letter, just like you don't sit down with each of your friends for an hour-long conversation over coffee every day. But little things like "Oh, you have a new haircut!" or "Your children sure are growing up!" or "Nice pics from your trip to Italy" ... these kind of casual contacts are part and parcel of what make our face-to-face relationships meaningful and make us feel "close" to people. Prior to FB it was difficult if not impossible to have these kinds of contacts with a large group of friends and family far away. For anyone who's moved around a bit and left dear friends behind every place they've lived, Facebook was a godsend.
If you find the hassles of using it outweigh that benefit -- or if that particular benefit isn't very beneficial to you or doesn't meet a need in your life -- then it's perfectly fine to go without Facebook. But like anything else you choose not to use, there will obviously be some things you miss out on.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It's perfectly fine to go without Facebook. But like anything else you choose not to use, there will obviously be some things you miss out on.
Ah, well. The world will continue to turn.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
If you find the hassles of using it outweigh that benefit -- or if that particular benefit isn't very beneficial to you or doesn't meet a need in your life -- then it's perfectly fine to go without Facebook. But like anything else you choose not to use, there will obviously be some things you miss out on.
I was a busy facebook user until recently and gave it up after 'losing' my account. (Old email address, forgotten password)
I'm not missing out at all. Friends who want to keep in touch, do. In fact I have had lunch with three of them now because we no longer chat on FB! Those who don't were not really friends, they were interested acquaintances.
The thing I have gained is time - always a valuable commodity!
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm not missing out at all. Friends who want to keep in touch, do. In fact I have had lunch with three of them now because we no longer chat on FB! Those who don't were not really friends, they were interested acquaintances.
Well, sure, if your friends live in places where having lunch is a possibility, that's great. The friends who mean the most to me on Facebook live on average anywhere from 1000 - 4000 miles away, so lunch is not really an option. But again, if being off Facebook works well for you, that's great. Nobody has an obligation to use any technology; tools are to be used if they're useful.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
A comment about facebook and church came up locally here. If your church doesn't have young people, there is probably a correlation with not using facebook for the church's online presence, as well as probably not using other social media. As Jesus went eating meals with strangers, so we might consider facebooking with them.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
The friends who mean the most to me on Facebook live on average anywhere from 1000 - 4000 miles away, so lunch is not really an option.
What? You don't watch each other eating lunch via Skype? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[Miss Amanda will demurely dab her lip, place her napkin back in its ring, and excuse herself from the table.]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I have had lunch with three of them now because we no longer chat on FB! Those who don't were not really friends, they were interested acquaintances.
I do think there's a lot of confusion between the concepts of friend and acquaintance. A friend you drop other interests to help them in need, and they likewise for you. An acquaintance - maybe, once, if it's convenient. Friendships take time, none of us have much time, so we have to choose and nurture a few friendships. Lots of casual acquaintances can create the illusion of lots of friends.
I gather from some reports that the facebook crowd is beginning to recognize that having "600 friends more than you do" is meaningless.
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It's perfectly fine to go without Facebook. But like anything else you choose not to use, there will obviously be some things you miss out on.
Ah, well. The world will continue to turn.
Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives. heh.
Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'm not missing out at all. Friends who want to keep in touch, do. In fact I have had lunch with three of them now because we no longer chat on FB! Those who don't were not really friends, they were interested acquaintances.
Well, sure, if your friends live in places where having lunch is a possibility, that's great. The friends who mean the most to me on Facebook live on average anywhere from 1000 - 4000 miles away, so lunch is not really an option. But again, if being off Facebook works well for you, that's great. Nobody has an obligation to use any technology; tools are to be used if they're useful.
Four years ago I moved to a new state to take up a new ministry role. The denominational department I work for specialises in placing people in remote, disadvantaged and vulnerable communities. And I do mean REMOTE in Australian understanding.... Like my parish boundaries are fours hours drive from my home... I drive four thous kms a month.
Anyway, Facebook has kept me sane. Yes, I have made friends here in the last few yeas, but most of the folk I know and love live thousands of kms away from me. Having lunch with thm is not an option. Annual vacation maybe....
I have family and friend all over the world. Thank God for FB. Without it, my remoteness would be even more remote.
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on
:
I hope you didn't feel pressurised into actually joining Facebook, this seems a very sad reason for doing so. You are very gracious about your friend and he certainly wouldn't have been treated as kindly by me.
I do have a Facebook account and probably log in about every three months. I find it in the main an immense disappointment. Things don't appear in any sensible order and some seem to appear more than once. Also, a couple of people from the past that I've made contact with, and have vowed to keep in touch, haven't - not that this is Facebook's fault, of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But there was one day when it did make me very happy. I found the account of someone I used to go out with. We broke up rather painfully and although I had apologised for my part in that I always wondered how his life had gone. He is married to the girl he started dating after me, and they have two lovely kids. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
I didn't try to contact him, I was just so glad to see it.
Nen - bless.
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on
:
What I "like" about facebook is that we have many many families all over the world and it gets us some connection with them, including pictures of them etc.
But, it is still very busy with all sorts of things being placed in and I wish that didn't happen.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
I hope you didn't feel pressurised into actually joining Facebook,
I wouldn't join facebook for one person, it's rather that this incident confronted me what I think is happening all around me - people are putting info on facebook expecting anyone who wants to be part of their life will go to their facebook page to find out what's going on - what new job they got, when they will be throwing a party, that the husband is in the hospital and when visiting hours are, the pictures of the new baby.
I don't show up at the hospital or the party or send a text about how cute the new baby is (what baby, I didn't know your daughter was pregnant, that news was on facebook too!) because I don't know about these things, you assume I'm not responding because I'm not interested in your life, you stop making time to have lunch with me.
If I say "I want to see pics of the baby" I'm told "they are on facebook. " If I say I'm not on facebook I get an uncomprehending shrug, I do NOT get sent baby pics.
If you want to be connected you have to be where others connect, and unfortunately today that's facebook.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I say "I want to see pics of the baby" I'm told "they are on facebook. " If I say I'm not on facebook I get an uncomprehending shrug, I do NOT get sent baby pics.
Then, to be fair, they are not a real friend and not worth your trouble.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Exactly!
Take control of your own life and don't let life control you.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
If you have email it's quite easy for someone to send you a link to the Facebook album of their baby pictures without you having to actually be a Facebook member yourself, so there's no excuse for them not sending you the pictures (much easier than attaching a bunch of pictures to an email).
If you see the person face-to-face frequently enough that they can sit down and hand out a packet of printed-off pictures of the baby (do people even print off pictures anymore?) then you probably don't need to connect with them on Facebook.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
If you have email it's quite easy for someone to send you a link to the Facebook album of their baby pictures without you having to actually be a Facebook member yourself, so there's no excuse for them not sending you the pictures (much easier than attaching a bunch of pictures to an email).
That depends on your privacy settings, and many people are very careful about allowing the general public access to pictures of their children.
I would have thought that many people have close relatives who don't use Facebook and are unlikely to do so, but I suppose they tend to be in physical contact with them, and they probably get personal copies, or are physically shown the photos on a phone/laptop/tablet/whatever, and everyone else is expected to put themselves out to access them.
Personally I don't put any personal pictures onto Facebook, because they have an unfortunate tendency to claim rights over anything that is put onto what is ultimately their webspace and not ours.
I love the fact that I can keep in touch with a disparate and geographically widespread group of friends in a casual and frequent manner - I feel as though I regularly have coffee and a chat with people I would otherwise rarely see. I don't like Facebook's ethos and attitude, but I do like what it allows me to do. I am quite happy to use it as long as I keep a keen eye on my own and my friends' privacy settings. Having said that, neither I nor my friends use it to arrange parties or other offline events, and I hope it stays that way.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that even if your privacy is set to "Friends Only," (which mine is), at the bottom of every Facebook photo album is a link that says "Use this link to share this album with family and friends who aren't on Facebook." So if you have given the link to someone, they can view it (but the general public can't, without the link).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I say "I want to see pics of the baby" I'm told "they are on facebook. " If I say I'm not on facebook I get an uncomprehending shrug, I do NOT get sent baby pics.
Then, to be fair, they are not a real friend and not worth your trouble.
I do not think it is this simple. Facebook is the current paradigm for some and they simply do not see beyond it.
This is not a justification, far from it. But, as in most of human interaction, the lines are not clear and sharp.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that even if your privacy is set to "Friends Only," (which mine is), at the bottom of every Facebook photo album is a link that says "Use this link to share this album with family and friends who aren't on Facebook." So if you have given the link to someone, they can view it (but the general public can't, without the link).
I haven't got anything like that, but FB are always introducing or testing new things a bit at a time, so it's possible that some accounts do have it. It seems like quite a good idea, but also another area where privacy might well be more easily compromised.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
User error is likely the largest reason privacy is compromised on FB. However, when web services change their policies or implementation, they often change your settings to the default. And this is not typically very private. Routinely check.
And, as I've mentioned, Facebook violate their own privacy policies.
There are no fail safes, however.
Basically, if you cannot stand everyone viewing your pics or info, do not share it with anyone.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
If you see the person face-to-face frequently enough that they can sit down and hand out a packet of printed-off pictures of the baby (do people even print off pictures anymore?) then you probably don't need to connect with them on Facebook.
What seems most common now is people will ask "Do you want to see my new grandbaby, puppy, whatever" and then pull out their phone rather than their wallet. (I still have pix in my wallet; my phone doesn't do pictures.)
Posted by Ye Olde Motherboarde (# 54) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, this is a rant about FB--but your friend is throwing a party in honor of himself? And expects the guests to do all the organizing/ shopping/ cooking? And saddles YOU unasked (just commanded) with the job of organizing it? And then bitches when you haven't received his not-an-invitation?
Someone needs to go all Miss Manners on his ass.
I totally agree with Lamb Chopped. The rudeness and arrogance of the man! (This man is NOT A FRIEND)
I send e-mails or phone call if I would want a party and I CERTAINLY would not tell someone to organize it for me! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I do have a Facebook page and find I keep in touch with relatives's and family. BUT, I will call and e-mail because I won't post anything that I wouldn't make public to all. I e-mail private conversations. or use the phone or text.
I find Twitter absolutely ridiculous. I have a real life and telling what I am doing every second via Twitter would be the height of egomania. Ain't going to happen.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Basically common sense rulz. I chek my privacies often. Generally I refrain from saying "Bishop X is an egotistical syphilitic kiddy-fiddling fucktard" if I want a job in Bishop X's diocese. The same probabaly would go for the equivalent figures in real jobs.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that even if your privacy is set to "Friends Only," (which mine is), at the bottom of every Facebook photo album is a link that says "Use this link to share this album with family and friends who aren't on Facebook." So if you have given the link to someone, they can view it (but the general public can't, without the link).
I haven't got anything like that, but FB are always introducing or testing new things a bit at a time, so it's possible that some accounts do have it. It seems like quite a good idea, but also another area where privacy might well be more easily compromised.
It's not a new feature, but it's only on the pictures I uploaded myself, as far as I can see.
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If I say "I want to see pics of the baby" I'm told "they are on facebook. " If I say I'm not on facebook I get an uncomprehending shrug, I do NOT get sent baby pics.
It doesn't take two minutes to attach pictures to an email and send it. For a long time I wasn't on Facebook and my friends used to email me photos. Sometimes they still do if I'm RL friends with them but not linked on FB.
Life is too short to waste it chasing unresponsive people who aren't prepared even to click a couple of buttons for you (or who tell you to host a party for them). With the best will in the world you cannot make a relationship work if the other party isn't willing. Let them go if that's what they want. There are other people out there who will value you more.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I'm bookmarking this topic, since the interesting info in it is just like having a tutorial to refer to. My screen reader doesn't really like Face Book much, but I'm slowly learning to use bits of it.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
Basically common sense rulz. I chek my privacies often. Generally I refrain from saying "Bishop X is an egotistical syphilitic kiddy-fiddling fucktard" if I want a job in Bishop X's diocese. The same probabaly would go for the equivalent figures in real jobs.
LOL, I get the impression a lot of people think "I'm never going to work for him so what do I care." Then you move. And then he moves. And there you are.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ye Olde Motherboarde:
I find Twitter absolutely ridiculous. I have a real life and telling what I am doing every second via Twitter would be the height of egomania. Ain't going to happen.
Of course, you don't have to use Twitter that way. Almost all my Twitter communication is finding out what are the latest links to church news stories. If you have a special interest or theme, and only follow those who have the same, you are far more likely to have a productive time than if you just spout, and listen to, general twaddle.
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on
:
I had promised myself I wouldn't go on Facebook - then Lord P moved to Horsham and friends were suddenly telling us about the lovely photos he'd posted and information which he certainly hadn't told us. So I signed up just to find out what my son was actually up to! It's proved to be very useful - being able to communicate in real time is very handy, and I am regularly in contact with one particular friend who only lives the other side of town but I don't see that often.
Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Of course, you don't have to use Twitter that way. Almost all my Twitter communication is finding out what are the latest links to church news stories. If you have a special interest or theme, and only follow those who have the same, you are far more likely to have a productive time than if you just spout, and listen to, general twaddle.
Yes, I use Twitter like that. I have a few friends that I chat with, and the rest is effectively a newsfeed for organisations I'm interested in, the weather, the BBC, flood warnings, a very small number of comedians who post funny one-liners but don't go overboard, etc. It can be very useful if you pick and choose who you follow.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0