[masklinn]

No. It's completely "voluntary" and the quotes are important: if your whole social environment standardizes on a platform, you're an outcast if you don't step aboard. If your professional environment standardizes on a platform, you're an outcast if you don't step aboard.

It's only actually completely voluntary if you have infinite money and no issue (and no repercussion from) completely dropping whole social and professional circles out of your life.

And that still requires the network/system is honest about it[0], when Google automagically creates a G+ account for you when you sign up for (supposedly) unrelated services or forces you to create one to access other content, "voluntary" is really debatable. Again, unless you have no issue shedding whole social circles instantly.

[0] http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2012/01/google-doubles-p...

[Permit]

I don't know if I've ever really bought into this. I've yet to hear the story of the individual who lost all social ties because they quit Facebook. I made the decision about a year ago, due to excess wasted time on the site and have yet to face any real negative side effects to doing so.

People were social long before Facebook was around, and can remain so without it. Even with an account, the information you share on Facebook is voluntarily given.

I think what Facebook has done most effectively is given people the illusion that their lives are somehow more social because of it.

[morsch]

It's not as if it's either/or. Clearly it is true that new technologies -- say, for example, the telephone -- affect our social lives. Consequently, abstaining, for whatever reason, from using those technologies will affect your social life. To what degree and in what manner totally depends on the individual involved, the technology itself, the way it is being used, etc.

However, one thing is certain, I think. Some technologies may have a transformative effect: The fact that you could act in manner X to get result Y before the technology gained widespread use does not mean you can continue to do so after it has. I'm sure this was true for the telephone, and I'm pretty sure it's true for Facebook and its replacements.

[dwiel]

I think its both. While it may be possible in your group of friends to quit Facebook, it might not be so for other people. Imagine quitting the telephone. People were social long before the telephone was around, and can remain so without it. I know that quitting Facebook wouldn't harm my socialization too much, but quitting the telephone probably would. I can imagine people for whom quitting Facebook would have similar effects as me quitting the telephone.

[ajanuary]

I know a few people who haven't been invited - or have found out too late - about events because they were organised on Facebook and they're not on it.

Those same people are regularly out of the loop in conversations their friends have on Facebook, which at times makes them feel a little isolated.

I've heard of one person who made a huge social faux pas because they couldn't read about someone's breakup on Facebook.

The same are all true of some people I know who live on LiveJournal.

Facebook is a great tool for socialisation, and because of that a lot of people use it. When your social circles use it heavily and you don't, you miss out. Yes, you can do all that socialisation outside of Facebook, but the fact remains that a lot of people don't, and you can't really choose how your friends socialise.

It's not an absolute. You're unlikely to become completely socially ostracised because you're not on Facebook, but it can certainly make some peoples social lives more difficult not being on it.

There /is/ social pressure for some people to use Facebook.

[fl3tch]

We need more people making this point. How did we manage to socialise up until a mere four years ago? It's still possible today without Facebook. People who say they can't quit Facebook are like people who say it's too hard to quit smoking. No, you really can. You just don't want to.

[rue]

That's not strictly true; you have to consider the entire system, not just the individual. It's not like only you picked up this new tech and can therefore, if you will it, drop it. Everyone else in your social circle needs to, as well.

It's the same as asserting that people can communicate without phones, or that they can get news without the internet, the phone or newspapers. Sure, they can, but it's incredibly inefficient, exponentially so when everyone else still does.

(I've still managed to stay away from Facebook, but, then, I don't have many friends.)

[davidhollander]

> you're an outcast if you don't step aboard. If your professional environment standardizes on a platform

Although employment and social circles DO limit your range of actions, you accept the tradeoff voluntarily in exchange for benefits. You can find a new job or people to associate with if the benefits do not justify the cost, without your employer or friends being able to legally threaten you with violence. On the other hand if you refuse to allow surveillance or investigation by the law, they are authorized to use as much force as is necessary to seize your property, imprison you, or execute you. It's completely voluntary in that regard.

"Voluntary" can be viewed as an antonym for "coerced", where coercion implies an underlying threat of violence. Forced denial of an individuals life, liberty, and property can be construed as violence or coercion. Such properties do not presuppose the presence of another person or governing body, so may be considered intrinsic to the individual. However, employers or friends denying the deliverance of their property or empathy to you cannot be construed as violence or coercion. Such exchanges presuppose the presence of multiple people, and therefore cannot be considered the denial of a property intrinsic to one individual.

[lunarscape]

I agree. I've certainly personally paid a large price socially for leaving Facebook (after the photo recognition scandal) and professionally after leaving LinkedIn (after the advertising incident).

[Karunamon]

So? If this is a problem, sign up with the minimum amount of information necessary. (Which, as of time of writing, is first/last name, email, gender, and DOB.. and the DoB doesn't have to be legitimate)

You are not forced to share anything. If you want to use Facebook as strictly a messaging platform, there is no negative effect for doing so.

Characterizing it as "surveillance" is RMS's typical good-natured extremism.

[ajanuary]

There are lots of people for who name and gender are hot topics.

And with the "Like" buttons you /are/ forced to share your browsing history (no, being able to circumnavigate it by blocking it doesn't count)

[Karunamon]

..And if it's that much of a hot topic for you, you don't sign up. Or use fake info. Who's going to know, as long as your name isn't Clark Kent with a picture of Superman?

Also, singling out Facebook for what every advertiser cookie has done since the mid 90's seems a bit silly.

[VMG]

The thing is that surveillance should be reserved to people who lived under something like the Stasi regime and had to risk their life to escape.

You only have to pick up the phone instead of using the computer.

[edit]

G+ doesn't change the surveillance situation at all. I have a G+ account and I don't do anything with it. Google doesn't have any additional information.