[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]

You don't appear to be seeing the important caveat here: if I want you in my life I make that happen. Random people I don't interact with contacting me out of the blue is not something I really want or need. It's entirely possible to be happy with the number of friends and contacts you have. That's not grim in the slightest, it's actually very nice.

[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.