[mseebach]

> I can't think of anything else I really miss out on from Fb.

I can't tell if you've left Facebook and feel these solutions replace it, or if you've just read the list of features, and decided you're covered. What you're missing: The aggregated, passive flow of opportunities to stay in touch.

I occasionally have short conversations with people I haven't seen for a decade, prompted by something either I or they posted. It's nothing deep and profound, but it feels good to stay in touch.

If I just put pictures and news on my blog or flickr, I would be relying on hundreds of acquaintances from the past 15 year to regularly visit these places - and why would they do that?

[SimonPStevens]

> I can't tell if you've left Facebook and feel these solutions replace it, or if you've just read the list of features, and decided you're covered.

I've got an Fb account, and I do use it lightly. I tend to have random conversations with people because of posts they make on twitter, or on their blogs.

I do watch my Fb news feed on my phone, so if I spot something worth starting up a conversation about I have the opportunity to.

My discomfort with Fb is that to even view content requires an account. Content is only shared amongst account holders. If I post some photos, or an event I don't want to require people to sign up to Fb to view that content. Hence I post my content on more open services. My concern is more for the other people who don't use Fb than it is for myself or those who already use Fb.

If I post content on a blog, I sometimes post a link on Fb. I don't see any problem with that. Some people choose to follow me via Fb, and that is fine, but I also want to remain open to those people who don't like Fb and I give them the option to follow me in other ways.

[mseebach]

That's fine (and not terribly different from how I use Facebook and other stuff, actually). But then your question becomes "What do I really miss out on for not using Facebook exclusively?" to which the answer is "Absolutely nothing. kthxbye."

[nhangen]

But who really needs "aggregated, passive flow of opportunities to stay in touch?"

These are proxy relationships. Friends are welcome to call me, but I don't want to be involved in their lives 24/7, nor do I want the opportunity.

[mseebach]

Well, if "do we really need this" was a viable yardstick for the value of innovation, nothing significant would have been invented in the past 100 years.

And telling me that the relationships I have on Facebook are worth less that not having them at all because they are on Facebook rather than on the phone(x) is incredibly arrogant and, well, none of your business.

(x) Never mind that they would have significant trouble reaching me using any of the 1998 contact information they have on me. Except for my name, which happens to be fairly unique, none of it is valid today, nor was it already by 2000.

[nhangen]

I never said it was. However, you're implying that other solutions missing this means that they are not valuable or effective, which is just as wrong. It's purely subjective.

I'm not talking about your relationships either...I could care less. That's my point. Facebook is what it is, but just because it's popular does not mean it's necessary.

[meric]

The only `necessary` things are family, shelter, clothes, food, water and transportation. Yahoo and Bing are fine replacements for google even if the latter is more popular. What is your point?

[MortenK]

His point is in line 1: "However, you're implying that other solutions missing this means that they are not valuable or effective, which is just as wrong. It's purely subjective."