[pgodzin]

And in 2015 everyone is on Facebook. If everyone moves off of Facebook then we're back in the "good old days" but until then, there are many social aspects, such as event planning, that are being done entirely on the site. You can't point to a time when FB wasn't around and say that everyone didn't have FB then and can just as easily not have it again when reality has changed so much since then.

[icanhackit]

there are many social aspects, such as event planning, that are being done entirely on the site

I haven't had a Facebook account for 3 years and while that was my main concern, I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there. People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

Canning your account is also a good way to cull relationships not worth maintaining. In my case it was around 70% of my contacts, leaving 30% who I gave a damn about. The ultimate tool for social networking is still at my disposal - the mobile phone. Facebook is a middle-man. A relationship broker.

Some advice for anyone who plans on closing their Facebook account: scrape any photos with you in them (and anyone you have an affinity for), phone numbers and the big one: birthdays. My calendar reminds me when someone has a birthday and their phone numbers sit in my contacts list.

[nitrogen]

I haven't had a Facebook account for 3 years and while that was my main concern, I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there. People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

Based on the comments people make about how essential Facebook is, it seems that not everyone has the luxury of such friendships. Maybe it's because they grew up in a military family that moved around frequently, or they came from a small town where nobody shared their interests, etc. They still might want the company of the fair weather friends who only invite them to do stuff via mass events on Facebook.

[TeMPOraL]

> Maybe it's because they grew up in a military family that moved around frequently, or they came from a small town where nobody shared their interests, etc. They still might want the company of the fair weather friends who only invite them to do stuff via mass events on Facebook.

Or maybe they're just... normal, regular adults? The kind that met their friends in school and university, and then had to split with most of them because some were from out of town, other moved; everyone now has a job and responsibilities and any tool that lets you maintain relationships without crazy amount of micromanagement is a very useful thing?

Some comments try to marginalize Facebook as if it was something weird. It isn't. It's normal to use it. That's what regular folks do.

[bigbugbag]

Sorry to point that out but it seems you miswrote email in your reply.

[TeMPOraL]

No I didn't. Normal people don't use e-mail for day-to-day communication anymore, unless they need to send files (e.g. documents) as attachments. You may not like it, you may pretend it isn't happening, but it doesn't change that it's true.

[Shish2k]

Anecdote not data, but out of 96 emails in my inbox, only one of them is even remotely social (if you count a family member asking for PC tech support as social)...

[bigbugbag]

well then I suppose you have a facebook and have blocked all those annoying email from facebook warning you about what's happening on facebook which is a dead giveaway that facebook understand that email is where the action is/was/will be.

Try surveying an inbox of those who do not use facebook. Chances are you'll get quite a different picture.

You can also have a look at those:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/why-em...

http://blog.frontapp.com/email-will-last-forever (seems to be down at the moment, try the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20150331054046/http://blog.fronta... )

[TeMPOraL]

(Please don't take it personally; I want to comment on a generic phenomenon.)

There is a pattern I see in every HN thread about Facebook. It consists of comments structured like this: "I haven't had a Facebook account for [1 year - ever]. I don't see what's useful about it. I think relationships maintained by it are bad / artificial / unnecessary." Am I the only one who notices that comments of the form "I don't use X therefore I have an opinion on X" are of... limited usefulness?

--

> I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there.

Facebook invitations are equivalent to the forms above.

> People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network

Facebook is as real as any other social network.

> and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for me to contact you?

> Some advice for anyone who plans on closing their Facebook account: scrape any photos with you in them (and anyone you have an affinity for), phone numbers and the big one: birthdays. My calendar reminds me when someone has a birthday and their phone numbers sit in my contacts list.

One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday into Facebook (and before that, into the IMs they were using), to see who actually remembers the real date. It always makes me wonder, what they're trying to prove this way? That some people don't care about them enough to remember the date? Well guess what, nobody is that fucking important. Your parents and your spouse may remember the date, but why should anyone else? Do you remember the birth dates of people you expect to remember yours?

[bigbugbag]

> Facebook is as real as any other social network.

This has been proven otherwise.

> If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for me to contact you?

exactly! why do you force me to register an account on a known privacy invader website that don't respect its words nor its users to get in touch with you ?

>One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday into Facebook to see who actually remembers the real date.

The people I know who do that are doing it just because they don't want to give away their real birth date. This is sensitive info.

[TeMPOraL]

> This has been proven otherwise.

[citation needed]. Seriously, what exactly is so different about Facebook? As far as I can tell, it's the usual generational whining about "technology destroying social relations", that was repeated by every generation since invention of newspapers.

> exactly! why do you force me to register an account on a known privacy invader website that don't respect its words nor its users to get in touch with you ?

The OP phrased his comment in a way that implied you are the one burdening your loved ones on purpose, and this was what I responded to.

> The people I know who do that are doing it just because they don't want to give away their real birth date. This is sensitive info.

Birthdays are absolutely not sensitive info (regardless of legal definition); if you're thinking that, you're fooling yourself. Like name, address, sex, and bank account number, they're public info. Usernames, not passwords. You've probably left all of those multiple times this year to random untrusted third parties.

[bigbugbag]

>[citation needed]. Seriously, what exactly is so different about Facebook? As far as I can tell, it's the usual generational whining about "technology destroying social relations", that was repeated by every generation since invention of newspapers.

This is not wikipedia. just use a search engine, talk to people who closed their or got removed from facebook, go to the library to get books on the subject, get in a horrible accident and count how many facebook contacts are on your bedside when you wake up, get convicted and thrown in jail and see how many facebook contacts will be visiting you regularly for 10 years.

I fail to understand how exactly it is news: party friends are not true friends, drug friends are not true friends, facebook contacts are not true friends either.

> The OP phrased his comment in a way that implied you are the one burdening your loved ones on purpose, and this was what I responded to.

And I phrased mine to show that your counter argument works both ways, except facebook is preventing outside people from getting in touch with inside people, not the other way around.

>Birthdays are absolutely not sensitive info (regardless of legal definition); if you're thinking that, you're fooling yourself. Like name, address, sex, and bank account number, they're public info. Usernames, not passwords. You've probably left all of those multiple times this year to random untrusted third parties.

People who do not put heir real birth date may think that, on the other I know that it is a sensitive information for I have personal experience with its exploitation. You may have confused a few concept here, data that is public can also be sensitive, see social engineering. But let's just give you a random innocent example: girl has crush on boy, stalks his facebook for birth date, find out his astrology sign, renounces for astrocompatibility bs. Boy unknowingly missed opportunity to explore bases.

[TeMPOraL]

> This is not wikipedia.

This is Hacker News. I actually expect higher standards of this place.

> I fail to understand how exactly it is news: party friends are not true friends, drug friends are not true friends, facebook contacts are not true friends either.

You seem to believe that "Facebook network" and "real life network" are distinct networks. They're not. Usually there are only few points when they don't overlap - because in reality, you have one social network and Facebook is a convenient tool to manage it. So yes, I if I get into an accident or get thrown into a jail I expect a lot of my Facebook friends, who are also real-life friends, to show up. Hell, I expect many more to come than without Facebook, because there really is no other widespread way of keeping many people updated about each other's day-to-day life.

> And I phrased mine to show that your counter argument works both ways, except facebook is preventing outside people from getting in touch with inside people, not the other way around.

I accept that it works both ways. In most discussions, people actually bring up only the side from your counter, completely forgetting about the one I wanted to remind OP about.

> You may have confused a few concept here, data that is public can also be sensitive, see social engineering.

Part of the problem of social engineering is that people treat "public but sensitive data" as anything but public. If I know your birthday or address or bank account number, it doesn't prove anything about my relationship to you. People who ignore it end up becoming victims of social engineering attacks. I think it's a part of basic security training to make them understand that this data is to be assumed public knowledge.

> a random innocent example: girl has crush on boy, stalks his facebook for birth date, find out his astrology sign, renounces for astrocompatibility bs. Boy unknowingly missed opportunity to explore bases.

Well, so what? Things like these happen all the time with any random things. She may have overheard his birth date in a conversation. Or maybe he put a fake date and she thought it's true and gave up even though both were astrocompatibile and believed in the BS. It's easy to invent such examples to prove just about any point.

[icanhackit]

Please don't take it personally; I want to comment on a generic phenomenon.

I don't and I appreciate your reply. The amount of years wasn't a penis-measuring contest, it was to add context to the rest of my statement. The subtext was with time your attachment to the thing lessens. I can see that my statement follows a formula that regularly appears in response to popular topics.

> People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network

Facebook is as real as any other social network.

I feel like this was the most important part of what I was trying to say - Don't underestimate human needs or desires. Don't underestimate the power of real friendship. This is what humans have used for a long time. If someone wants to see you, they will. If someone likes you, they'll like you whether you're on MyFace or only accessible by phone. Facebook is only a recent phenomenon, yet people act like they're severing a limb if they don't participate on it.

But! You make a good point and force me to add a caveat: Facebook did add value because I became good friends with people through weak initial bonds. Because of its ease of use, its casualness and how noncommittal you can be with people over it. It helped me produce some valuable relationships which now happen outside of it. It was a catalyst of sorts. But only for a very narrow selection of friends and later in life.

One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday into Facebook (and before that, into the IMs they were using), to see who actually remembers the real date.

I don't know anyone like that. They'd be culled from my circle if that's the kind of bullshit they pulled.

[TeMPOraL]

Thank you for taking time to answer :).

> The subtext was with time your attachment to the thing lessens.

I definitely agree with that. It's true about most of things in life; frankly, people (myself included) usually underestimate how people can come to terms with things and/or stop caring about something once they commit to detach from it.

I originally interpreted your comment as typical "I haven't used X for years therefore I don't see why others still use it" kind of comment, which always appear in FB-related threads. I now see that your point was more subtle and I jumped to conclusions.

I agree with your point about close friendships and the power of human needs and desires. But I personally find my life greatly enhanced by the ability new technology, and Facebook in particular, gives to keep the weak ties. Because I found out on many occasions that they don't always stay weak. Every now and then, you may end up getting real close with that one weak acquaintance, and then you're glad you've kept contact.

Also "casualness and how noncommittal you can be with people over it" feel important to me. Maybe it's the introvert vs. extrovert thing again, but myself and a lot of people I know really appreciate the kind of flexible commitment Facebook gives, which is a kind of combination of e-mails, IMs and newsgroups. Being introvert, investing time in constant face-to-face - or even voice - synchronized contact would totally wear me down. I love asynchronous communication, and I know I'm not the only one.

> It helped me produce some valuable relationships which now happen outside of it. It was a catalyst of sorts. But only for a very narrow selection of friends and later in life.

Personally I believe that Facebook, like all technology, works best when it's a part of your life - even if a big part - but does not take over the life completely. You really can't replicate all aspects of off-line contact in software.

> I don't know anyone like that. They'd be culled from my circle if that's the kind of bullshit they pulled.

I know a few, some did that before Facebook with various IMs. Some understand this is pointless and get over it, others sadly don't. I'd probably cull most of those who would make a big issue out of me not remembering, but fortunately AFAIR no one ever did.

[scrollaway]

I agree with you on the gist of your comment but wanted to address this:

> If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for me to contact you?

If you're my friend or love interest, I will immediately lose interest in you if you require me to use something I dislike simply for maintaining an online relationship. I don't make it particularly hard for people to contact me. Email, phone, IRC, gtalk, even shudders skype. If you can't use any of these, or simply talk in real life, you'll need to be quite the snowflake for me to actually use facebook just for you.

[TeMPOraL]

Yes, I agree, it works both ways.

[bigbugbag]

I'm not on facebook never will be, many people are not. Some do not have broadband internet access, other do not have internet access at all or even a computer. Can you believe this, there are people who do not have consistent electricity.

Obviously not everyone is on facebook in 2015 and this is something that will simply not happen.

[ryandrake]

Being "on Facebook" does not imply that one loses access to other forms of communication. I'm not a Facebook user, but a few of my friends are (presumably). They still respond to E-mails and they still answer phone calls. I've never encountered anyone who claimed that as soon as they signed up for Facebook, they lost Grandma's phone number.

[aaronmhatch]

"And in 2015 everyone is on Facebook"

Not even close. Check some statistics on how many (or few) teenagers use it.

[ctdonath]

And in 2010 "nobody" will be in Facebook.

I've been watching this social media lifecycle for 30 years. No, Facebook isn't "too big to fail" any more than the dozen other "too big to fail" forums, all of which failed.

[onewaystreet]

It's easy to say Facebook will eventually fail, but given its size it will take a major shift in Internet usage for it to happen. People compare Facebook to AOL. AOL started to decline because of the shift from dial-up to broadband. What will cause Facebook to decline? A shift to mobile? Facebook owns four of top social apps (Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram). VR? Facebook owns Oculus.

[ctdonath]

AOL bought Time-Warner, major broadband supplier. How could the monster dominating social media site lose market share in the shift to broadband when they practically owned broadband? But...they did, completely.

[onewaystreet]

That was the idea, but then you have to execute. The AOL Time-Warner merger was fraught with managerial infighting. So far Facebook has been good at integrating its acquisitions.

[grumblestumble]

Please tell me more about all these historical "too big to fail" "forums" where across the globe, all of my non-technical friends and their entire families, including grandma, were signed up and active.

[bigbugbag]

So basically you are asking "tell me about those online places where I couldn't find those people who had no internet access at the time."

Internet penetration increases through time and with that more non-knowledgeable people get on board and go to the lowest common denominator, lower branches. See AOL, eternal september.

The point being that those site such as facebook and those who came before have no proper value. Value and content comes from the users, who can shift it around quite faster than expected. -edit- sorry, allow me to correct myself here, facebook has value in that it succeeded in linking real names with online profiles. Something that was unthinkable and contrary to common sense and netiquette. -/edit-

Follow the trail of 13 years old and you'll know which site is gonna succeed in the near future.

[ctdonath]

CompuServe. AOL. Both dominated social media so much that anyone new had practically no choice but sign up because everyone they knew who was on any social media was on there.

Wasn't long ago here on HN we were bantering about Facebook disappearing because everyone was leaving in droves.

[TheOtherHobbes]

There's always a Facebook-shaped niche. It used to a CompuServe-shaped niche. Then it turned into an AOL-shaped niche.

But it's the same niche, for more-or-less the same user profile.

And it'a a very vulnerable niche. FB may seem unstoppable at the moment, but it really isn't.

The number of ways it could be replaced is non-trivial.

Zuckerberg knows this, hence internet.org, which is really just a way to promote lock-in in the developing world. But that's a lot less useful than it seems if FB loses traction in the developed world.