[dsadsadsaddsa]

There's a lot to unpack here.

First, this is a very clear example of how the manner in which Facebook operates has a very disproportionate effect on women. My wife followed me and gave up social media, and found it incredibly difficult, much more so than I. It was also notable that many people told me that I was doing the right thing, etc etc, but the general response my wife got was "how will anyone keep in touch with you?"

>It's not really an "optional" social network if large swathes of your social circle have started using it for essential life functions

Putting aside the trite observation that, for two years, young families being able to socialise was considered absolutely non-essential, Facebook is as essential as you make it. Ever since it took hold in universities, people have asked (with varying degrees of irony), "how do you exist without Facebook?". The answer is - just fine.

>and no, telling all the mums at the playground about how Facebook's ban policies are bad and we should all use the Fediverse instead is not going to work for the average person.

We generally don't mention it, and get on with having a good time with people (which includes arranging for social continuation - ie, meeting up again).

>it's more like a utility and should be regulated like one.

The idea that an online echo chamber is essential to life, is very depressing. Community exists in the incidental and in the repetitive rhythms of life.

Edit: The response to this is very interesting. I am very glad I returned to my native country instead of trying to build a life in the US, as it seems that something invented as a way to keep up with college girls has become deeply ingrained as a social necessity in a very short space of time.

[watwut]

> Putting aside the trite observation that, for two years, young families being able to socialise was considered absolutely non-essential, Facebook is as essential as you make it.

For two years, those young families did a lot more socialization over internet - be it facebook, zoom or whatsapp. If anything more socialization and coordination move there.

Also, this is not so much about young families, this is about primary caregivers. Most of their time is necessary spend alone and if they want to meet with anyone, they have to coordinate online.

[dsadsadsaddsa]

>For two years, those young families did a lot more socialization over internet

Tell me about it. The number of very young kids I now see clutching a phone or tablet is heart-breaking.

>If anything more socialization and coordination move there.

I very deliberately decided to reject that "new normal". Do you think that it's a good thing?

>Also, this is not so much about young families, this is about primary caregivers.

Do young families not have a primary caregiver? The effects we are talking about apply equally well to both, if you insist on making that distinction.

[watwut]

> Do young families not have a primary caregiver? The effects we are talking about apply equally well to both, if you insist on making that distinction.

If you go to work, you don't have this issue (regardless of whether both work or only one). The super isolated lonely primary caregiver thing is what happens when you are stay at home. Babies and toddlers are fine being with parents only. Within young family that has that problem, this is a problem of one person. The rest of them dont even have to be aware.

> I very deliberately decided to reject that "new normal". Do you think that it's a good thing?

This is what you wrote: "young families being able to socialise was considered absolutely non-essential, Facebook is as essential as you make it". I am saying that pandemic did not shown any of that. Many young families had 2 adults at home constantly - making loneliness issue much different. Others had one close friends they met with regularly.

And most seen socialization as important and moved it online.

[dsadsadsaddsa]

>Within young family that has that problem, this is a problem of one person. The rest of them dont even have to be aware.

I don't get what point you are trying to make. Yes, my family has a primary caregiver (like practically every other family). No, it's not me. However, this means I have an exceptionally good understanding of the very issue that is being discussed. I care deeply about the issues that person has as they raise our kids through their youngest ages, and I do whatever I can that is best for all the members of my family.

>Others had one close friends they met with regularly.

Good for them. Where I live, it was illegal to have other people in your houses until mid-2021. Cafes and other hospitality locations were closed for around the same time. My local playground was literally chained shut. Tell me it's fun meeting other families with babies in the winter in an empty field (it's not). Particularly when those other people spend the whole time dancing around you on tip-toes trying to keep the government-mandated 2m separation.

>And most seen socialization as important and moved it online.

There's the catch - I don't regard online-only interacting as "socialising". Most of what makes mere words into the all-encompassing experience known as "socialising" has been removed.

[watwut]

Decided to make this point first: pandemic lockdown was much less lonely situation then being stay at home. The work from home of other partner is already massive change. Moreover, everyone you know is in the same situation, so you have whole world of zoom calls of understanding people. You are all in the same situation, all your pre-existing friends are in exact same situations. It had other issues, sure, but was less lonely.

> I don't get what point you are trying to make. Yes, my family has a primary caregiver (like practically every other family). No, it's not me. However, this means I have an exceptionally good understanding of the very issue that is being discussed. I care deeply about the issues that person has as they raise our kids through their youngest ages, and I do whatever I can that is best for all the members of my family.

Only stay at home person is actually lonely, others are not. No matter how awesome emphatic the other person is, the other person is not that lonely. And in my experience, dont really understands what is like nor consequences of it, despite the best intentions.

Like I said above, being stay at home is way more isolating then pandemic was. That is something easy to understand if you was at home, but people who were not refuse to hear.

> Tell me it's fun meeting other families with babies in the winter in an empty field (it's not).

With babies, we would walk with strollers, we did it every day in winter too. With babies the emptiness of field does not matter much, cause they don't do much anyway and sleep or look. In general, in here, people don't socialize in cafes with kids lockdown or not. It was going outside.

[dsadsadsaddsa]

>being stay at home is way more isolating then pandemic was.

I could not disagree more, and my partner would say the same. What was so absolutely terrible about Covid lockdowns was that the few coping mechanisms available to primary caregivers in those early months and years of their childrens' lives (cafe visits with friends, having other people visit, going to the park and talking to others, etc etc) were completely removed. Covid lockdowns were near 100% isolating (and by design).

>The work from home of other partner is already massive change.

And this made it worse again! Not only does one partner have to try to look after young children literally isolated and not allowed to leave the house, but the other is supposed to sit staring at their computer and concentrate on work while ignoring them?

>It was going outside.

I don't know where you are from, but the Covid restrictions here were not only very strict, but people were incredibly compliant. The parks and such were empty! I was surprised. I had many lonely trips to our local playground with my little boy.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I don't get what point you're trying to make

They succeeded in making it quite clearly, imo:

> This is what you wrote: "young families being able to socialise was considered absolutely non-essential, Facebook is as essential as you make it". I am saying that pandemic did not shown any of that.

in other words, they were correcting your incorrect statement about the inessentialness of socializing during the pandemic