[jakequade]

Sorry, but for the most part this sounds stupid. You're hating a widespread method of communication because it doesn't work for you _when you're not using it_. That's like complaining that no one text messages you if you never opted in to owning a phone.

[astura]

Yeah, and it's really baffling that someone who is a self described "introvert," who goes years without speaking to people they consider close friends, is upset they didn't get an invite to a high school reunion!?!? Why would someone like that want to attend a high school reunion in the first place?

They didn't get an invite because they don't stay in communication with people, not because they don't have a Facebook!!!

I'm not really sure why they'd expect to hear directly from the mom. When a person dies, the information is spread like a web, the next-of-kin very rarely informs everyone directly. Usually they inform their close circle and the close circle of the deceased. Then those people spread the word. 100% of the time I've been informed of a death it was by someone in my close circle, not the next-of-kin. Since the author doesn't keep communication with their "friends," they got overlooked. That's very sad and shitty, but it doesn't have to do with Facebook.

[mondoshawan]

Maybe because without an event to go to, it's difficult to force themselves out into the world?

Maybe because they wanted to see their friend at said event?

Or maybe, just maybe, they didn't have the current contact info for their friends and would like so still see them but otherwise can't setup a meeting with them?

The article doesn't make all of the facts plain, so it's pointless to speculate the full details.

[ExcelSaga]

I hate that, if I somehow don’t want to consign my personal data, beliefs, preferences, relationships, work history, daily plans, and private messages to a massive advertising corporation, I have to risk missing out on seminal life events. Not being on Facebook is sort of like not having a cellphone. Sure, me and a small number of weirdos can opt out, but we are increasingly disadvantaged by it.

I think that’s a good point, well stated, and your dismissal is rude and without depth. Owning a phone doesn’t necessitate giving something like Facebook access to your whole life. When a means of communication becomes a utility (as you’re describing), it has responsibilities and regulations.

As of 2015, this blog was on the nose.

[jakequade]

There's a huge leap between using the platform and giving them all of your data. Be restrictive around what you put up, and the permissions you give it. Sure, it's some measure of personal involvement, but it's necessary for the most basic of access.

Shouldn't it also be the case that, if you're the one not on a widespread platform that - clearly - a lot of people are using to communicate, it's on you to make the effort to reach out?

I actually think the opposite of your claim - expecting a family who's member has committed suicide to have to actively reach out to this one person is rude and without depth. Expecting any kind of personalised treatment whilst alienating yourself is similar, but that one example sums it up for me.

[ExcelSaga]

It’s not about what you share. See responses to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16675819