[trutannus]

I don't think that's what they're getting at. My understanding of this was that "people who actually care about you will find a way". Someone who does not actually care about you won't bother. So chances are, if the person was only in contact with you because you're on Facebook, they don't really care about you in the first place. Cutting off someone who can't be bothered to get in touch with you is pretty normal.

[tumblewit]

Exactly! Most people now just text me if they want to know about me. I realised so many of these ‘friends’ only cared enough to like pictures or make a comment on them. Beyond that they weren’t interested. It’s better to not have such friends than have them as you are getting a false sense of friendship not a real one. I can’t believe people don’t see this problem yet. Not to mention the fact that if I actually meet them maybe by coincidence for example, they have nothing to talk about themselves but still have a profile full of photos. I already know a few people who have completely lost it due to Facebook and Instagram. I hope the damage isn’t beyond repair. This is a very serious problem in my opinion. I don’t think everyone is addicted but I think most of them are and it’s not good.

[trutannus]

Agreed. False senses of friendships can lead you to think you have more friends than you do. Having a better sense of who actually cares lets you assess if you need to see out new friends. The more accurately you know who your friends are, the more able you are to determine if you need to go make more/new friends.

[emodendroket]

Friendship is a two-way street and you may find you have few friends after all if you insist that they jump through hoops to get a hold of you.

[trutannus]

I don't think asking "just text me instead, I don't have Facebook" is really that high of a bar. Frankly, someone who's going to cut contact because they don't want to text me isn't really worth the effort in the first place.

[nobody9999]

>I don't think asking "just text me instead, I don't have Facebook" is really that high of a bar. Frankly, someone who's going to cut contact because they don't want to text me isn't really worth the effort in the first place.

Exactly. The way I look at it is this:

   I want to be around folks who want to be around 
   me.  And not all of those, either.

   If you can't be bothered to stay in touch, then 
   you obviously don't want to be around me.

   I'm perfectly willing to make the effort.  It's 
   really not that hard.

[emodendroket]

I think it's pretty realistic that someone would like to get in contact with you but doesn't necessarily have your phone number or a way to ask you for it. And sometimes it's nice to catch up with old friends even if you weren't super close, especially if you find yourself in a new area. I think the idea of trying to make people "prove" they're your real friends and cutting the people who don't reach the threshold out of your life is a way of making your life a lonelier one. Not everyone is going to be there giving me the shirt off their back when I'm in serious need, but they don't have to be to be worth associating with.

[nobody9999]

>I think it's pretty realistic that someone would like to get in contact with you but doesn't necessarily have your phone number or a way to ask you for it.

Who, exactly, would that "someone" be? If they don't know me, what would possess them to decide "oh gosh, I just adore Nobody9999. I wish I had some way to get in touch with him/her/they/xe. That sucks!"

>I think the idea of trying to make people "prove" they're your real friends and cutting the people who don't reach the threshold out of your life is a way of making your life a lonelier one.

You completely misunderstand my point. I will assume good faith (but given what I said and your reply, that stretches credulity, but I will try) here and explain:

I don't make anyone do anything.

I also don't beg people to spend time/energy on me. Relationships (of all kinds, familial, professional, platonic or romantic) are a two-way street.

If someone is only willing to interact with me through a particular medium, and if I don't they want nothing to do with me, how important am I to that person?

And that, like all relationships, goes both ways.

Someone I only interact with online ain't my friend. At best they're an acquaintance. If there's something more there we both will make the effort to maintain our relationship.

Anyone who's had any sort of personal relationship knows that they take work to maintain. That's a two-way street.

Some rando on the 'net ain't my friend. Or at least not until we both make the effort to change that.

Honestly, I'm not really sure why this needs explaining.

Edit: Corrected spelling (of my own name, no less) error.

[trutannus]

The issue isn't about "proving" or anything like that. It's simply that I don't want to have social media. That's my personal choice. Friends are folks who respect their other friends personal choices.

> someone would like to get in contact with you but doesn't necessarily have your phone number

I see this differently: nobody is entitled to my time, or to contact me. If you don't have the means to contact me, that's because I don't want you to contact me. If I want you to be able to reach me, I will make it simple for you. Be that an email, phone number, or what-have-you. That someone random can't reach me on a whim is not a bug, it's a feature. If someone expects me to facilitate that for them, then they have a sense of entitlement to other's time. That's a them problem, not a me problem.

[emodendroket]

Well, if you see people wishing to contact you as an imposition I suppose your stance makes sense, but I think it is a grim way to live.

[trutannus]

> I want to be around folks who want to be around me. And not all of those, either.

This is a great distinction that I think a lot of people would be happier if they followed. Just because someone wants your time does not mean you have to, or even should, provide it to them. Wanting to spend time with you is a basic prerequisite, but is not the only criterion.

[nobody9999]

>This is a great distinction that I think a lot of people would be happier if they followed. Just because someone wants your time does not mean you have to, or even should, provide it to them. Wanting to spend time with you is a basic prerequisite, but is not the only criterion.

I think there's another piece to that as well. Some people require more external validation than others.

Those who do will seek out that validation. And a great place to get that without a lot of effort is on social media.

That's not to say those who require less external validation don't use social media. Rather, I imagine that they use it differently.

I don't have data to back any of that up, just 50+ years of living and interacting with other folks both in person and online. As such. YMMV.

[trutannus]

Definitely sounds like you're onto something there. For myself, external validation isn't something I need outside of my immediate family. So that could definitely play a role in how I view social media, and how I was so able to cut it off.

[watwut]

So basically you are setting up the friendship test by deliberately making it harder to reach you. And then you guilt people who don't jump over obstacles you create.

[trutannus]

This is a bizarre interpretation. Where exactly do you see that I guilt people? This isn't some "test", and the fact that you see it that way is somewhat baffling to me. It's a personal choice made based on personal preference. I don't like social media, so I won't use it.

I provide people who I want to be in contact with the means to do so easily. Be that over email, phone, text message, or even physical meetups. If sending me a text, or sending me an email, is too high of a barrier for communication for someone, that's not my problem and likely indicates that the friendship was not particularly valuable in the first place. That's not a "test", that's simply how things are.

If I don't want you to be able to contact me, you won't be able to. I'm not obligated to make myself available to anyone who may wish to contact me. I'm not sure why this needs to be explained.