[compiler-guy]

This is a painfully simplistic response.

No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.

And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.

[__jal]

I don't use FB at all, and haven't, ever. I'm a part of two groups that do most of their business on FB, in an official role in one of them. I don't miss anything important, and find it beneficial that I miss the rest[1].

I've refused to be blackmailed into Facebook use by my family, so there's zero chance a friend or associate will get away with it. If people can't be arsed to email me about something they consider significant, I don't have time for them either.

FOMO is a condition that happens in your head, as is how you let your peers treat you. It is within your power to deal with it.

[1] I don't discount that informal bonding, chit-chat, etc.; it is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, group formation, etc. I prefer the in-person sort, and for virtual, there's a whole internet out there that is not FB.

[tdurden]

> And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.

I think you might mean _fear_ of being left out...friends will find other ways to contact you.

[tedunangst]

Or not. Maybe they just decide it's not worth the hassle of tracking down the outliers. I guess we can argue that anybody who's a real friend will message you using your preferred comm, though that cuts both ways. If you are a real friend, you'd message them back with their preferred system.

[michaelmrose]

Email is a system which you can assume virtually 100% of users have and doesn't force users to participate in a social network that has been shown to be harmful for a lot of users.

Further email doesn't force you to participate in any particular service at all because it is a federated service.

Assuming that someone should get a facebook to talk to you is like assuming someone should switch to sprint to call you.

Imagine how moronic the world would be if all the different phone networks were disconnected from one another.

[compiler-guy]

Regardless of the morality, weirdness or absurdness, that ship has sailed. Many, many groups only use facebook, and if you want to be a part of them, you have to as well.

I agree it is suboptimal, and whether or not it is worth the tradeoff is an individual decision, but that is the world we live in.

The group level is where most of the rubber meets the road here.

[EGreg]

I bet most teens do not use email for anything except work stuff.

[tripzilch]

I work at a youth centre. The teens I know really have the widest range of options of contacting each other. They use FB mostly for school and family. Email is used mainly for sending documents or attachments.

If they're hard to reach it's because they chose to, not because you're using the wrong comm channel :)

[michaelmrose]

How is your guess about other people useful info?

[EGreg]

How is the parent comment's guess about 100% of people having email useful?

[tedunangst]

I would estimate at most 10% of my Facebook friends have the same email address today that they had on the day we connected.

[tripzilch]

Huh? "Preferred" doesn't cut both ways. It never does, unless it's a shared preference. Using any shared method of communication to contact each other is what real friends do.

Also a group that "just decides" outliers are not worth the hassle, are not friends. They seriously are not. Friend groups are pretty much defined as the sort of groups that do not do this. Except in cases of grave social misconduct, often destroying the "group" or "friend" aspect in the process.

They are a group, yes. And indeed, some groups will sometimes just decide to ostracise outliers if it conflicts with the group identity. Nothing inherently wrong with that, btw, this can be very useful for certain types of group. As long as it doesn't become the main type of group you identify with. Because then, as we see from all the people making excuses all over this thread, not adhering to certain rules of the group-identity becomes an existential fear of epic proportions, because it touches upon a very fundamental behavioural aspect of our biology--fear of being cast out of the tribe (which used to mean suffering followed by near-certain death).

Facebook is currently exploiting this behavioural trigger (together with an addictive cocktail of other triggers) in a quarter of the world's population.

[chrischen]

If you’re considered an outlier then you should probably start finding new friends.

Generally back when I used facebook the cloests friends I had had 0 interaction on facebook and we usually just direct message through messenger or imessage.

Fscebook at that time was just for maintaining those “outlier” relationships until I realized its better to have closer bonds with fewer people.

[komali2]

I don't think this is true. We always have that moment at parties, "Where's Kyle? Oh shit, he deleted his facebook and didn't see the invite, did anybody text him to tell him?!" No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.

[Prefinem]

Those aren't your friends buddy.

>No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.

My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.

[compiler-guy]

And here we see the mismatch between the two camps:

Sure, [good|strong|old|pick your adjective] friends will contact you regardless of your facebook involvement.

But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.

And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?

If I live on a mountain, 1,000 miles from everyone, people--even my friends--don't invite me to their parties because they don't think I'm available. I have isolated myself, and people take social cues from that. People also take clues from social isolation.

I'm reminded of when I set my mother up for email. She really didn't think she needed it or would want it, "Getting a stamp just isn't that hard." But the fact of the matter is that the lower friction method of communication enabled her to be in contact with many, many more people. Facebook is even lower friction than that.

"Those aren't your friends" ignores too many realities of life.

[Prefinem]

> And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?

Texting is just as easy as facebook messaging. Or they can use discord, slack, etc etc. facebook isn't the only way to contact someone that is easy.

> But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.

Maybe this is because I grew an introvert, but I can deal with being by myself as well as most of my friends. Going to events, etc isn't a must have. It's something that you can do if you want too. If I want to go hang out, then I will contact people. I will make it easy for them to say yes/no/no response. But I don't have to be apart of every group meeting, or every little discussion.

[compiler-guy]

This is again an argument that the tradeoff is worth it, not that it is easy.

Trade that off if you like, not not everyone does.

[tripzilch]

How is email even remotely comparable to FB use?

It's not even addictive.

This is like saying you taught your mother to enjoy mint-flavoured soda water ("a glass of water is just as good for thirst") ... as a way to defend having to drink alcohol to feel accepted by your friends.

Oh and in a lot of cases, the fear is not even real, you just believe you need FB. Your friends might just surprise you yet.

[michaelmrose]

Everyone has an email. You are comparing opening a different app on your phone which requires you to move your finger an inch to a 1000 mile trek.

Anyone who can't move their finger an inch to click on a different ubiquitous app to contact you isn't your friend regardless of what you think.

[compiler-guy]

It isn't just moving your finger an inch. It's contacting you differently than they contact literally every one else in their social circle.

And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't. Your ability to judge from several paragraphs of my writing and nothing more is pretty impressive.

The things I missed weren't really, my friends exactly, but rather broad groups with common interests.

If one doesn't hang out where everyone else does, you can't expect people to invite you when they look at each other and say, "Let's go somewhere."

[komali2]

I'm more likely to have someone on facebook that I am to be able to look up their email via name on any of my phone apps (either by having their email saved against their contact, or having it in gmail)

[Swizec]

> My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.

The part where you get left out is when someone from your squad sees a cool event and decides to go. They're going regardless of who else is going, but it would be nice to have some friends there.

So they post in the squad group chat "Hey I'm going to this event, anyone in?" aaaaand that's about it as far as organization goes. If you're in you're in, if you're not, that's fine too.

Not every event warrants personally inviting everyone you'd like to see there. Personally inviting people is for small primarily gatherings, not for more casual larger stuff.

[Prefinem]

> casual larger stuff

casual isn't friendship. My friends and I, hang out because we enjoy each others company and like to do things together. Not to invite people because we are lonely.

Plus, I don't mind being "left out" or "missing something". As I get older, it's just not worth the hassle

[Swizec]

> casual isn't friendship

Why not? People are busy. They have jobs and partners and pets and sometimes kids. All of that takes time and attention.

These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is. And trying to get together face-to-face? LoL, it can take months to align our schedules.

And when it comes to larger stuff. Sometimes you just wanna organize a birthday party or something for everyone, you know? If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?

[tripzilch]

I think it's pretty bad to restrict this sort of communication (which nowhere requires anything remotely like FB use) to a singular communication channel and actively hampering any attempts to transparently include other methods that do not not involve FB use.

And the buck doesn't stop at FB or its developers, now you are forcing other people start using, too.

[endless1234]

>Those aren't your friends buddy.

Maybe sometimes I want to go see acquintances though, not just people who are already good friends and will remember to invite me via my preferred way of communication?

[cakedoggie]

> Those aren't your friends buddy.

Um, so? He still wanted to go that party.

[pessimizer]

The party didn't want him. No one at that party cared enough to make less of an effort to inform him that there was a party than it would take me to get a glass of water from the kitchen.

[endless1234]

Sending snail mail is pretty easy too. If you were to switch to only communicating via snail mail, do you think your invites to social events would drop? The events probably didn't want you anyways, since they couldn't be bothered to just send you the snail mail via this simple internet service. They're not your real friends.

[tripzilch]

What's the actual number? Because if 99 people out of a 100 all didn't think to text Kyle, then I don't think there's even a handful of people that actually really ever wanted him to be there.

It takes a very particular size of group for that to happen. If you hang out with 4-5 people you would know if you "forgot" to invite someone. If it's much more than that, that is really a lot of people who it didn't occur to whether they wanted to see Kyle there or not.

But you should really ask Kyle, about feeling left out and the quality of his friendships.

> 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook

Except that is not why you are on FB while trying to defend your behaviour towards Kyle, that's only the story an alcoholic tells to himself when he's meeting his friends at the corner pub.

If FB usage was just a "party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing", we would not be having this discussion.

Let alone a "very useful" one, which would obviously allow to invite people transparently and easily via multiple channels of communication. FB does the exact opposite of this[0]. Now listen to yourself defending this!! Is that really your true opinion of this "organising app" speaking, or is it your dopamine-addiction, group identity and fear of ostracism?

[0] Try using FB links sent through other comm for a bit with a logged out, cookies cleared browser. Like, a day or two.

[Markoff]

sounds like Kyle got lucky not spending time with "friends" like that

[compiler-guy]

Fear has nothing to do with it. When I was not on facebook, I was getting left out of activities and events that weren't exactly with friends, but more with common interests.

[ozim]

So you are basically saying that you can be an ass and make it harder for others to contact you. Then if they are worthy enough you they will spend their time installing whatever communication tool you use. I do not get the feeling that I can be a princess and I also have to care about relation.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

>No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.

It is. You have the power to choose what you want to be a part of. And these groups have more members than yourself - people who you can ask to help you stay up to date on meetings and such.

[debaserab2]

I'm sorry, but get real. People use technology because it assists and speeds up areas of their life. For many people, facebook far and away is the most convenient way to manage their social life simply because they have the greatest adoption within their social groups.

Yes, we could "write someone a letter in the mail instead" or "ask a friend about the events on facebook" but that would defeat the point for the vast majority of us that aren't interested in spending hours managing our social contacts and calendars. You're not really giving solutions when you suggest things like that.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

The point I'm making is thus: if you acknowledge that Facebook is a bad influence on your life but you feel stuck with it, here's a low risk strategy for dipping your toes into life without it that you can try out.

I don't spend hours managing my social contacts and calendars and I still feel connected with my family and my friends without Facebook.

I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.

[komali2]

>I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.

I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.

"It is legal to hunt. There's nothing stopping you from going into the woods, killing a deer, and salting its meat other than your own dependency on the conveniences of the modern era."

I mean, at some point, we have to accept that the world is becoming a lot easier to live in.

I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked. I genuinely believe people that disagree are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.

[Sir_Cmpwn]

>I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.

Well, a grocery store isn't really harmful in the way Facebook is. Grocery stores aren't tracking you in every other store you go to and selling that information to the highest bidder, they aren't tracking when you're asleep and awake and everything you use on your phone and they aren't designed to keep you addicted and in the store for as many of your waking hours as possible. You could point out that they might do things like put sugary foods in prominent places but you can always exercise self control and go to the healthier choice - but there's no equivalent Facebook "lite:. Even if grocery stores were all of these things it'd be a lot more reasonable to suggest the farmer's market before hunting. Facebook is demonstrably harmful, grocery stores are not.

>I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked.

I'm 25 years old, and I definitely lived through and remember a lot of time when the internet was not ubiquitous and calling your friends up was the best way to reach them (I remember the rise of texting, too). It really wasn't bad at all.

>Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.

I don't use Facebook today and I still have friends around the world. Hell, in two weeks I'm flying out to Tokyo and crashing on a friend's couch for two weeks and seeing a concert - and we managed to arrange that without Facebook.

[compiler-guy]

Apparently your social circles don't use facebook as much as other people's do. That's great that you can make it work for you. But don't project your social world onto every one else's.

Also, I keep seeing the, "Facebook isn't worth the tradeoff" argument coming up. That may be true, but again, that is a different claim than, "It is easy to live without it."

re: Your note below that you are suggesting others give it a try:

I did that for years. I counted on getting invites via text message or email. I organized things myself without it. I really did give it a go. I still missed out on way more than I wanted to.

I finally joined facebook about six months ago. I'm very careful about what I share, both with other facebook users and the company itself.

I hate many things about facebook. But what I can't deny is that I am much more connected with many more people than I was before. There is no comparison.

[tripzilch]

You could ONLY say the same thing about buying food in a store if, given that all the other arguments were refuted or shown weak, you came up with "but I fear I will lose my shopping buddies".

In addition, unlike supermarkets, FB use is actually addictive, it is very much designed to be that way. This is not a point of discussion any more.

For instance, your era with the nostalgia glasses, sure it sucked (depending where you lived I guess). But FB use was not the thing that changed it. That was mobile phones, and if you lived in that era you know this very well. That's a couple of decades of technology you're skipping over to justify your FB use.

[michaelmrose]

Do you know the internet was a thing in the 90s?

[komali2]

Yes, late 90's, AIM was a thing... if my mom wasn't on the phone, or if my dad didn't need the computer for work. Didn't help me early 90's and certainly didn't help me figure out if my friend was home before I made the bike ride over :P

[debaserab2]

Or, perhaps, just maybe people have different social lives and expectations within a social group that yours don't share. Just maybe.

[compiler-guy]

I joined facebook less than six months ago. I know quite well what life is like without it. My social life is quite a bit better now than it was before. And yes, I really did try.

Although I hate, hate, hate certain parts of it, there is absolutely zero doubt that it has been beneficial on balance.

[lkozma]

Yes, your last point seems quite accurate -- smokers often complain that they would like to stop smoking, but don't want to miss out on the social connections it entails.

[white-flame]

The problem is that those assistance & speed-up effects are directly tangible, but the addictiveness, echo chamber, and privacy effects aren't quite so apparent.

It's not a clear net positive just because of those conveniences, and there are no current "solutions" to give as everything you list is far more relevant to network effects than technical feature set. (e.g. in the past, using Facebook made you an outlier, why not just use email lists/myspace/phone calls/etc like everyone else?) A path to an alternative would be through Facebook collapsing (unlikely on their own), another social media site out-marketing Facebook, or establishing your own small networking effect under different assumptions.

[michaelmrose]

You could offer to assist in making information about said events available on multiple platforms. You could help everyone and yourself simultaneously.

[wott]

> I'm sorry, but get real. People use technology because it assists and speeds up areas of their life.

Get real: people waste a lot more time on 'tech' than they save, compared to doing without. The goal of most of those 'techs' is to take up as much of your time as possible, that's the foundation of their business.

[pessimizer]

I don't think that you can mention that a site people spend 4 hours a week browsing isn't a significant time saver compared to calling people and leaving texts.

[compiler-guy]

I never said I didn't have the power to choose not to be a part of these groups. The point is that I want to be a part of them, and doing that without facebook is 10x the additional friction.

Yes, I could ask someone to forward me the notices, and activities, but how do you propose I participate in the discussions of what to do?

When the voting via facebook poll happens, how do you propose I make my voice heard.

Now, you could argue that facebook isn't worth it. (And that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.) But that is a different position than, "It's easy to make these things work without facebook."

[michaelmrose]

Promote giving up facebook or advertising via alternative means both to whomever organizes it and among your fellow users.

Volunteer to help with those alternative means.

[compiler-guy]

Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication. Pick a method for managing the lists. Avoid the additional publicity public facebook postings get you when someone likes it.

Those are real tradeoffs that many groups aren't willing to accept, regardless of how willing a single person is to shoulder the burden.

[DrScump]

  Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication

That's exactly what you are doing by insisting on Facebook use unnecessarily, when email is the true common denominator (doesn't everyone in your friends list have email?).

[compiler-guy]

Nearly everyone is already there, and the number that isn't continues to fall every year. Yes everyone already has email, but list management and group organization is much worse. Even compared to Google groups.

And the fact is that most people prefer it.