> It's not that hard, you've just forgotten how to do these things without Facebook.

This doesn't work because the world has changed since Facebook didn't exist. Now that it does, some forms of social interaction that existed outside of FB now only exist on FB.

I have friends with whom FB is the only form of communication with them, and many more friends with whom FB is easily the primary form. You can't singlehandedly convince all of your friends to move off FB and onto a better platform. Especially since most of these friendships are kinda small.

I've often seen the argument "well if they aren't meaningful friendships, it doesn't matter" but that's just not practical. Sometimes you'll reconnect with someone who you haven't spoken with in 5 years - that's occasionally how friendships work. Friendships aren't permanent and steady in intensity: they sometimes fade in and out. Quitting FB obliterates all those transient and potential future friendships.

We can reduce you saying "When you learn how to live without it" to you saying "When you learn how to live without interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know". Does it seem so easy now?

You can and should ask your friends to adapt if FB is the only form of communication they will have with you.

First off, you're doing a terrible thing to yourself by framing it as if you have only two choices: Become FB's product or become ostracised from your social circle. The latter is a deeply-ingrained biological fear, back in our tribal hunter/gather days, this basically meant death. Advertising has been abusing this biological behavioural function since the early 80's[0] but Facebook is going to extremes by actually invading and parasitising off our current social fabric, rather than just promising a "cool" lifestyle on top, like branding does.

In addition, by letting your friends do this, you are normalising the idea of "FB as only form of communication" for everybody else, too! There's so many people out there who would love to stop using FB that won't because they, like you, deeply fear being ostracised. More than you think (you won't find them on FB). If you feel that, just maybe, a single mega-corporation shouldn't be able to do this to more than 25% of all people in the whole wide world[1], then just maybe it's worth it to take a tiny bit of a stance and have a firm talk with your friends about this abuse, no?

Then there's people that I've seen (on here) crying, "you seem to have it easy, apparently your friends+family will accept this and you have time to find other means of communication but I live far away from home and have no time, and I would be so incredibly lonely if I'd stop doing FB". If you really, really feel that way, here's a big, fat yell-out-loud piece of advice: YOU ARE ALREADY LONELY. BEING A FB USER JUST OBSCURES THIS FACT. START TAKING ACTION TO FIX THIS IN A HEALTHY WAY. You're a user, and your social network consists of users (even if many of them seem to do fine). Ask any ex-addict what that's worth.

Finally, some of my friends have gone through hard times. Money, mental health, bad times. Sometimes they drop off the radar. Damage or lose their phone, disconnect from the social networks because of anxiety, shame or worries. These are the people that need their (real) social networks the most. I (and some of my friends with me) always make a point of SMS texting them about social stuff, keeping them in the loop, hangouts going on, once I realise they no longer read a certain group-chat. Even if they don't reply 4 out of 5 times, you will find they are super-grateful the fifth time. If you love them, keep an eye out for them. And even if you don't know anyone in this kind of situation, somebody you know probably does, so for their sake, start normalising the idea of keeping people in the loop whether they are on FB or not! (same goes for other networks/means of communication, but FB is extra bad because of its ubiquity and it's actively exploiting our human behaviour in a manner that is harmful to many individuals--while to groups appearing fine).

> I've often seen the argument "well if they aren't meaningful friendships, it doesn't matter" but that's just not practical. Sometimes you'll reconnect with someone who you haven't spoken with in 5 years - that's occasionally how friendships work. Friendships aren't permanent and steady in intensity: they sometimes fade in and out. Quitting FB obliterates all those transient and potential future friendships.

Except for pointing out the fact that last line is false and this fade in/out of friendships really does happen whether you're on FB or not, I'm just going to repeat: Ask any ex-addict. There's a lot of subtle nuances and facets to this fear of losing touch with certain people or potential future social contacts if you'd really really stop being a user. Be sure to ask one instead of assuming you know what they'll tell you. If you think you don't know any ex-addicts, try asking about alcohol.

> We can reduce you saying "When you learn how to live without it" to you saying "When you learn how to live without interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know".

But are you really. How can you even say you're interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know if that interaction is forcefully mediated through a singular channel of communication and you openly admit you're unable to really connect with them otherwise.

> Does it seem so easy now?

Face it, what seems hard is actually interacting with these people more, in a way that does not involve using FB together. It's that corporate-manufactured addictiveness talking. Just like the trying-to-quit alcoholic, finding it hard to expand their interaction with their friends to include things that do not involve consuming alcohol, getting pulled back in again every time.

And if you're that far in, you have my compassion. Because that is hard. It starts with facing the facts and not making excuses, it is your social responsibility.

On the bright side, working to expand your interaction with those you care about outside FB, is wholesome and fun. Chances are you might even reconnect with someone you haven't spoken in 5 years.

[0] Naomi Klein, No Logo. With the rise of "branding", advertising shifted from "this is our product" and "it's better because it has Y" towards associating the product with a lifestyle, a social group often entirely unrelated to the product (Coca-Cola being the classic example, having gone through many lifestyle-guises, none of which having to do with consuming carbonated sugary chemical sludge).

[1] 26.1% at time of posting, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(facebook+users)/(worl...

Unfortunately I believe you have missed what I was trying to say and went on a very long post against something that doesn't have anything to do with how I use FB. Your post was fun and interesting to read, I- it- I- just... it's almost as if you responded to a completely different post.

To recap, I have a bunch of friendships that are so minor that I only have contact with them on FB. They're not serious enough to demand the other person to move off FB. (We're talking about "I randomly like one of there posts every few months" minor.) They may become more serious in the future due to the ephemeral nature of friendships. Leaving FB would sever those friendships before they get to that stage.

Hopefully that makes sense!

This is a painfully simplistic response.

No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.

And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.

I don't use FB at all, and haven't, ever. I'm a part of two groups that do most of their business on FB, in an official role in one of them. I don't miss anything important, and find it beneficial that I miss the rest[1].

I've refused to be blackmailed into Facebook use by my family, so there's zero chance a friend or associate will get away with it. If people can't be arsed to email me about something they consider significant, I don't have time for them either.

FOMO is a condition that happens in your head, as is how you let your peers treat you. It is within your power to deal with it.

[1] I don't discount that informal bonding, chit-chat, etc.; it is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, group formation, etc. I prefer the in-person sort, and for virtual, there's a whole internet out there that is not FB.

> And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.

I think you might mean _fear_ of being left out...friends will find other ways to contact you.

Or not. Maybe they just decide it's not worth the hassle of tracking down the outliers. I guess we can argue that anybody who's a real friend will message you using your preferred comm, though that cuts both ways. If you are a real friend, you'd message them back with their preferred system.

Email is a system which you can assume virtually 100% of users have and doesn't force users to participate in a social network that has been shown to be harmful for a lot of users.

Further email doesn't force you to participate in any particular service at all because it is a federated service.

Assuming that someone should get a facebook to talk to you is like assuming someone should switch to sprint to call you.

Imagine how moronic the world would be if all the different phone networks were disconnected from one another.

Regardless of the morality, weirdness or absurdness, that ship has sailed. Many, many groups only use facebook, and if you want to be a part of them, you have to as well.

I agree it is suboptimal, and whether or not it is worth the tradeoff is an individual decision, but that is the world we live in.

The group level is where most of the rubber meets the road here.

I bet most teens do not use email for anything except work stuff.

I work at a youth centre. The teens I know really have the widest range of options of contacting each other. They use FB mostly for school and family. Email is used mainly for sending documents or attachments.

If they're hard to reach it's because they chose to, not because you're using the wrong comm channel :)

How is your guess about other people useful info?

How is the parent comment's guess about 100% of people having email useful?

That it is true, and a communication system?

But if many don't use email much, how does it help? I barely check my personal email. And no one in my normal life knows my business email. Once in while a family member or friend will send something unimportant via email. Either I never see it. Or I see it a week or month afterward. My career relates strongly to the internet too.

If you don't respond to email and I don't communicate with you in person or on the phone I assume you are uninterested personally or professionally and take my friendship or business elsewhere.

Answering email is really a pretty normal expectation.

So is facebook for friendship lol

If you ask for their email and they offer to friend you, and you decline, should they assume you don't want to be in the loop for things?

Your arguments for email as a platform equally apply to facebook. Yeah email is decentralized and oldsr, but that stuff doesn't matter to regular people who want the easiest tool for the job.

I would estimate at most 10% of my Facebook friends have the same email address today that they had on the day we connected.

Huh? "Preferred" doesn't cut both ways. It never does, unless it's a shared preference. Using any shared method of communication to contact each other is what real friends do.

Also a group that "just decides" outliers are not worth the hassle, are not friends. They seriously are not. Friend groups are pretty much defined as the sort of groups that do not do this. Except in cases of grave social misconduct, often destroying the "group" or "friend" aspect in the process.

They are a group, yes. And indeed, some groups will sometimes just decide to ostracise outliers if it conflicts with the group identity. Nothing inherently wrong with that, btw, this can be very useful for certain types of group. As long as it doesn't become the main type of group you identify with. Because then, as we see from all the people making excuses all over this thread, not adhering to certain rules of the group-identity becomes an existential fear of epic proportions, because it touches upon a very fundamental behavioural aspect of our biology--fear of being cast out of the tribe (which used to mean suffering followed by near-certain death).

Facebook is currently exploiting this behavioural trigger (together with an addictive cocktail of other triggers) in a quarter of the world's population.

If you’re considered an outlier then you should probably start finding new friends.

Generally back when I used facebook the cloests friends I had had 0 interaction on facebook and we usually just direct message through messenger or imessage.

Fscebook at that time was just for maintaining those “outlier” relationships until I realized its better to have closer bonds with fewer people.

I don't think this is true. We always have that moment at parties, "Where's Kyle? Oh shit, he deleted his facebook and didn't see the invite, did anybody text him to tell him?!" No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.

Those aren't your friends buddy.

>No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.

My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.

And here we see the mismatch between the two camps:

Sure, [good|strong|old|pick your adjective] friends will contact you regardless of your facebook involvement.

But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.

And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?

If I live on a mountain, 1,000 miles from everyone, people--even my friends--don't invite me to their parties because they don't think I'm available. I have isolated myself, and people take social cues from that. People also take clues from social isolation.

I'm reminded of when I set my mother up for email. She really didn't think she needed it or would want it, "Getting a stamp just isn't that hard." But the fact of the matter is that the lower friction method of communication enabled her to be in contact with many, many more people. Facebook is even lower friction than that.

"Those aren't your friends" ignores too many realities of life.

> And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?

Texting is just as easy as facebook messaging. Or they can use discord, slack, etc etc. facebook isn't the only way to contact someone that is easy.

> But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.

Maybe this is because I grew an introvert, but I can deal with being by myself as well as most of my friends. Going to events, etc isn't a must have. It's something that you can do if you want too. If I want to go hang out, then I will contact people. I will make it easy for them to say yes/no/no response. But I don't have to be apart of every group meeting, or every little discussion.

This is again an argument that the tradeoff is worth it, not that it is easy.

Trade that off if you like, not not everyone does.

So what am I trading here?

Facebook vs having acquaintances?

Addiction versus having to put up with people defending their addiction as a "social habit".

It's like smoking in the 80s, with the ostracism turned up to 11.

The good news being, what seemed impossible then, we slowly seem to be winning the tide against smoking. Speaking as a (currently..) ex-smoker. If you remember we used to be allowed to smoke in restaurants (I can hardly believe it myself, sometimes), how the consensus felt back then, there is hope :)

How is email even remotely comparable to FB use?

It's not even addictive.

This is like saying you taught your mother to enjoy mint-flavoured soda water ("a glass of water is just as good for thirst") ... as a way to defend having to drink alcohol to feel accepted by your friends.

Oh and in a lot of cases, the fear is not even real, you just believe you need FB. Your friends might just surprise you yet.

Everyone has an email. You are comparing opening a different app on your phone which requires you to move your finger an inch to a 1000 mile trek.

Anyone who can't move their finger an inch to click on a different ubiquitous app to contact you isn't your friend regardless of what you think.

It isn't just moving your finger an inch. It's contacting you differently than they contact literally every one else in their social circle.

And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't. Your ability to judge from several paragraphs of my writing and nothing more is pretty impressive.

The things I missed weren't really, my friends exactly, but rather broad groups with common interests.

If one doesn't hang out where everyone else does, you can't expect people to invite you when they look at each other and say, "Let's go somewhere."

> And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't.

Read it again. He's not actually saying that.

Buddy I'm pretty sure it is your inability to judge just how many of your friends would still take the effort to reach out to you if you were to quit being a FB user, given any of the good reasons to do so.

Just like you might fear they won't be your friends or you won't be having a good time if you don't drink with them. That fear is most probably not real. And if it does turn out to be true, in the case if alcohol you probably dodged a bullet. And in the case of FB use ... well it's your call.

A social network isn't a place which implies exclusivity. If you are at one place you aren't at another and it also implies significant effort to move from one place to another.

Sending an email really does imply moving your finger an inch to use a different app.

How dare you imply that a real friend would lift a finger for me.

Hey psssht! I'm trying to boast about my low expectations of friendship in order to defend my addiction, here! I just want to be ... "liked".

I'm more likely to have someone on facebook that I am to be able to look up their email via name on any of my phone apps (either by having their email saved against their contact, or having it in gmail)

> My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.

The part where you get left out is when someone from your squad sees a cool event and decides to go. They're going regardless of who else is going, but it would be nice to have some friends there.

So they post in the squad group chat "Hey I'm going to this event, anyone in?" aaaaand that's about it as far as organization goes. If you're in you're in, if you're not, that's fine too.

Not every event warrants personally inviting everyone you'd like to see there. Personally inviting people is for small primarily gatherings, not for more casual larger stuff.

> casual larger stuff

casual isn't friendship. My friends and I, hang out because we enjoy each others company and like to do things together. Not to invite people because we are lonely.

Plus, I don't mind being "left out" or "missing something". As I get older, it's just not worth the hassle

> casual isn't friendship

Why not? People are busy. They have jobs and partners and pets and sometimes kids. All of that takes time and attention.

These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is. And trying to get together face-to-face? LoL, it can take months to align our schedules.

And when it comes to larger stuff. Sometimes you just wanna organize a birthday party or something for everyone, you know? If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?

> If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends

Acquaintances or good acquaintances.

I think this boils down to each person's definition of friends and friendship along with the amount of social interaction each person needs.

I need very little social interaction, so I tend to keep close friends and not much else. I know others who always like to be around someone. They don't care much who it is, and they generally have looser terms for friendship.

Also, face-to-face isn't required. Hop on discord or skype, or just send them a text message. If they are a close friend and you enjoy their company, you should try to keep the lines of communication open.

> I need very little social interaction

Don't let that stop you from telling others how to socialize correctly!

Is friendship a good thing?

Shouldn't we encourage others to have deeper, more meaningful relationships?

How does going to some event because you noticed an acquintance is going mean you won't have meaningful relationships? Those have to start somewhere too

> Acquaintances or good acquaintances.

So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.

> I need very little social interaction

Me too. Which is why I tend to keep to myself, and throw a huge rager for as many people as I can get to show up a couple times per year.

Maybe I don't really have any close friends anymore, the definition gets muddy when most everyone you used to consider a close friend is now a 12 hour flight away and you never really get to see them anymore.

But my point is that when I'm organizing a party, I want everyone. Acquaintances and close friends alike. It feels weird that just because I'm organizing a larger event, that should automatically make everyone I invite a not-friend. Usually I'd like a mix.

> > Acquaintances or good acquaintances.

> So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.

> But my point is that when I'm organizing a party, I want everyone. Acquaintances and close friends alike. It feels weird that just because I'm organizing a larger event, that should automatically make everyone I invite a not-friend.

I'm really confused now, do you invite your friends that are not FB users, or not?

Or do you claim that you have zero friends that are not FB users?

Do you require all your friends to be on FB? What about the ones who quit, do they just drop off your radar or something?

> So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.

Sorry, I took the inverted view of this. If you are inviting me, most likely I am an acquaintance.

I don't throw parties, but I do like to hang out, so generally I just invite friends over. Just friends. When I do throw a party, it's mostly for someone else and so is definitely mostly acquaintances.

> Maybe I don't really have any close friends anymore, the definition gets muddy when most everyone you used to consider a close friend is now a 12 hour flight away and you never really get to see them anymore.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is depressing. Some of my good friends I have actually never seen in real life. Distance doesn't mean you can't be friends. But I do make a point to talk with them once a week (we game together) unless someone is gone on a vacation or something like that. I remember a time when I didn't have any real friends and it put me adrift. I would highly recommend that you try and give them a call, or shoot them a text.

> Distance doesn't mean you can't be friends. But I do make a point to talk with them once a week (we game together) unless someone is gone on a vacation or something like that.

I know, I too have some close friends that I only saw in person many years after we became friends. We do have an IRC channel for a lot of these friends, but the 9 hour time difference seems to really throw a wrench into things.

Especially now that people have gotten lives. They close the computer after work (which is when I start waking up) and go do stuff with their partners. When they're online and chattering away, is most often when I'm asleep.

So yeah distance doesn't matter at all in my experience, but timezone difference matters a lot.

That said, these are not friends I would invite to a huge party anyway because they're too far to make it. We hang out when we're on the same continent.

> These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is.

Well, at least now you have your FB to collectively like and share away your sorrows. I'm sure you feel less sad while you're on it.

> If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?

If you do not invite me to this party just because I don't use FB? What do you think yourself? Would you call yourself my friend?

I mean if you forget, ok. But if you keep forgetting, yes that is how friendships wither and die. This is a natural thing. If it feels like a painful idea to lose someone's friendship that way, watering it is really one of the easiest things to do. If instead it feels like it is a hard thing to do, then ask yourself and consider what you really fear losing? (probably something other than friendship--not necessarily bad)

You can of course use FB to connect with friends. But, like alcohol, you cannot justify lack of FB to justify not connecting with your friends.

I think it's pretty bad to restrict this sort of communication (which nowhere requires anything remotely like FB use) to a singular communication channel and actively hampering any attempts to transparently include other methods that do not not involve FB use.

And the buck doesn't stop at FB or its developers, now you are forcing other people start using, too.

>Those aren't your friends buddy.

Maybe sometimes I want to go see acquintances though, not just people who are already good friends and will remember to invite me via my preferred way of communication?

> Those aren't your friends buddy.

Um, so? He still wanted to go that party.

The party didn't want him. No one at that party cared enough to make less of an effort to inform him that there was a party than it would take me to get a glass of water from the kitchen.

Sending snail mail is pretty easy too. If you were to switch to only communicating via snail mail, do you think your invites to social events would drop? The events probably didn't want you anyways, since they couldn't be bothered to just send you the snail mail via this simple internet service. They're not your real friends.

Stop drinking beer? What are you gonna drink, sand??

... like there aren't any communication alternatives that don't take days, just as speedy and convenient, but less addictive.

What's the actual number? Because if 99 people out of a 100 all didn't think to text Kyle, then I don't think there's even a handful of people that actually really ever wanted him to be there.

It takes a very particular size of group for that to happen. If you hang out with 4-5 people you would know if you "forgot" to invite someone. If it's much more than that, that is really a lot of people who it didn't occur to whether they wanted to see Kyle there or not.

But you should really ask Kyle, about feeling left out and the quality of his friendships.

> 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook

Except that is not why you are on FB while trying to defend your behaviour towards Kyle, that's only the story an alcoholic tells to himself when he's meeting his friends at the corner pub.

If FB usage was just a "party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing", we would not be having this discussion.

Let alone a "very useful" one, which would obviously allow to invite people transparently and easily via multiple channels of communication. FB does the exact opposite of this[0]. Now listen to yourself defending this!! Is that really your true opinion of this "organising app" speaking, or is it your dopamine-addiction, group identity and fear of ostracism?

[0] Try using FB links sent through other comm for a bit with a logged out, cookies cleared browser. Like, a day or two.

sounds like Kyle got lucky not spending time with "friends" like that

Fear has nothing to do with it. When I was not on facebook, I was getting left out of activities and events that weren't exactly with friends, but more with common interests.

So you are basically saying that you can be an ass and make it harder for others to contact you. Then if they are worthy enough you they will spend their time installing whatever communication tool you use. I do not get the feeling that I can be a princess and I also have to care about relation.

>No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.

It is. You have the power to choose what you want to be a part of. And these groups have more members than yourself - people who you can ask to help you stay up to date on meetings and such.

I'm sorry, but get real. People use technology because it assists and speeds up areas of their life. For many people, facebook far and away is the most convenient way to manage their social life simply because they have the greatest adoption within their social groups.

Yes, we could "write someone a letter in the mail instead" or "ask a friend about the events on facebook" but that would defeat the point for the vast majority of us that aren't interested in spending hours managing our social contacts and calendars. You're not really giving solutions when you suggest things like that.

The point I'm making is thus: if you acknowledge that Facebook is a bad influence on your life but you feel stuck with it, here's a low risk strategy for dipping your toes into life without it that you can try out.

I don't spend hours managing my social contacts and calendars and I still feel connected with my family and my friends without Facebook.

I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.

>I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.

I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.

"It is legal to hunt. There's nothing stopping you from going into the woods, killing a deer, and salting its meat other than your own dependency on the conveniences of the modern era."

I mean, at some point, we have to accept that the world is becoming a lot easier to live in.

I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked. I genuinely believe people that disagree are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.

>I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.

Well, a grocery store isn't really harmful in the way Facebook is. Grocery stores aren't tracking you in every other store you go to and selling that information to the highest bidder, they aren't tracking when you're asleep and awake and everything you use on your phone and they aren't designed to keep you addicted and in the store for as many of your waking hours as possible. You could point out that they might do things like put sugary foods in prominent places but you can always exercise self control and go to the healthier choice - but there's no equivalent Facebook "lite:. Even if grocery stores were all of these things it'd be a lot more reasonable to suggest the farmer's market before hunting. Facebook is demonstrably harmful, grocery stores are not.

>I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked.

I'm 25 years old, and I definitely lived through and remember a lot of time when the internet was not ubiquitous and calling your friends up was the best way to reach them (I remember the rise of texting, too). It really wasn't bad at all.

>Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.

I don't use Facebook today and I still have friends around the world. Hell, in two weeks I'm flying out to Tokyo and crashing on a friend's couch for two weeks and seeing a concert - and we managed to arrange that without Facebook.

Apparently your social circles don't use facebook as much as other people's do. That's great that you can make it work for you. But don't project your social world onto every one else's.

Also, I keep seeing the, "Facebook isn't worth the tradeoff" argument coming up. That may be true, but again, that is a different claim than, "It is easy to live without it."

re: Your note below that you are suggesting others give it a try:

I did that for years. I counted on getting invites via text message or email. I organized things myself without it. I really did give it a go. I still missed out on way more than I wanted to.

I finally joined facebook about six months ago. I'm very careful about what I share, both with other facebook users and the company itself.

I hate many things about facebook. But what I can't deny is that I am much more connected with many more people than I was before. There is no comparison.

I'm only talking about my experiences and suggesting others give it a try.

You could ONLY say the same thing about buying food in a store if, given that all the other arguments were refuted or shown weak, you came up with "but I fear I will lose my shopping buddies".

In addition, unlike supermarkets, FB use is actually addictive, it is very much designed to be that way. This is not a point of discussion any more.

For instance, your era with the nostalgia glasses, sure it sucked (depending where you lived I guess). But FB use was not the thing that changed it. That was mobile phones, and if you lived in that era you know this very well. That's a couple of decades of technology you're skipping over to justify your FB use.

Do you know the internet was a thing in the 90s?

Yes, late 90's, AIM was a thing... if my mom wasn't on the phone, or if my dad didn't need the computer for work. Didn't help me early 90's and certainly didn't help me figure out if my friend was home before I made the bike ride over :P

And then FB came along and suddenly everything was better.

... Except it didn't go like that at all, a zillion other options came along, pagers, mobile phones + texting, email, a whole bunch of instant messaging networks, all of which worked increasingly well for the problems your FB use is supposedly uniquely solving, yet none of was addictive like FB use, a machine learning algorithm targeting flaws in the human psyche / attention-mechanism / dopamine-treadmill to keep them "engaged" and instilling the fear of ostracism if they ever dare to leave.

You can defend convenient channels of communication, but you can't defend the package FB wraps it in.

Sir_Cmpwn said,

> I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.

Scarily so.

Or, perhaps, just maybe people have different social lives and expectations within a social group that yours don't share. Just maybe.

I joined facebook less than six months ago. I know quite well what life is like without it. My social life is quite a bit better now than it was before. And yes, I really did try.

Although I hate, hate, hate certain parts of it, there is absolutely zero doubt that it has been beneficial on balance.

Yes, your last point seems quite accurate -- smokers often complain that they would like to stop smoking, but don't want to miss out on the social connections it entails.

The problem is that those assistance & speed-up effects are directly tangible, but the addictiveness, echo chamber, and privacy effects aren't quite so apparent.

It's not a clear net positive just because of those conveniences, and there are no current "solutions" to give as everything you list is far more relevant to network effects than technical feature set. (e.g. in the past, using Facebook made you an outlier, why not just use email lists/myspace/phone calls/etc like everyone else?) A path to an alternative would be through Facebook collapsing (unlikely on their own), another social media site out-marketing Facebook, or establishing your own small networking effect under different assumptions.

You could offer to assist in making information about said events available on multiple platforms. You could help everyone and yourself simultaneously.

> I'm sorry, but get real. People use technology because it assists and speeds up areas of their life.

Get real: people waste a lot more time on 'tech' than they save, compared to doing without. The goal of most of those 'techs' is to take up as much of your time as possible, that's the foundation of their business.

I don't think that you can mention that a site people spend 4 hours a week browsing isn't a significant time saver compared to calling people and leaving texts.

I never said I didn't have the power to choose not to be a part of these groups. The point is that I want to be a part of them, and doing that without facebook is 10x the additional friction.

Yes, I could ask someone to forward me the notices, and activities, but how do you propose I participate in the discussions of what to do?

When the voting via facebook poll happens, how do you propose I make my voice heard.

Now, you could argue that facebook isn't worth it. (And that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.) But that is a different position than, "It's easy to make these things work without facebook."

Promote giving up facebook or advertising via alternative means both to whomever organizes it and among your fellow users.

Volunteer to help with those alternative means.

Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication. Pick a method for managing the lists. Avoid the additional publicity public facebook postings get you when someone likes it.

Those are real tradeoffs that many groups aren't willing to accept, regardless of how willing a single person is to shoulder the burden.

  Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication

That's exactly what you are doing by insisting on Facebook use unnecessarily, when email is the true common denominator (doesn't everyone in your friends list have email?).

Nearly everyone is already there, and the number that isn't continues to fall every year. Yes everyone already has email, but list management and group organization is much worse. Even compared to Google groups.

And the fact is that most people prefer it.

It's not really possible if the majority (or even portions) of your social life use facebook to organize events.

If you're interested in being a diligent contributor to your social group, you're either stuck trying to evangelize some other tool (usually less convenient for everyone else who doesn't mind facebook) or you're stuck asking for someone to check the FB event for you.

You can't really disconnect and easily maintain a social life in this circumstance.

You will be surprised by how easy it is. Take the approach I suggested. Wane yourself off of it and don't quit entirely until you feel comfortable with it.

I help out with an Art open studio event. Its really starting to be the case that people who are organizing events want to let members know about events and invite people via Facebook. We use that and email. Facebook is easy and somewhat effective.

Some people use it for their whole social calendar. This is different from the old evite.com days, which was more email list based.

I'm not on it so Facebook, but my Partner is so she keeps me posted on the social aspect of whats going on. If she wasn't I probably would have to be. Not being on it means stuff happens and I won't know. I'm ok with that, but it can be a bit isolating. There is only so much you can expect acquaintances to work to keep you in the loop.

People like that its free (not like the services you pay for like meetup.com)

I'm not interested in doubling or tripling the amount of time it takes to manage my social calendar and I find your comments that seem to be treating it like it's some kind of addiction to be a tad condescending for those of us who would close their account in a heartbeat if it wasn't such a necessary tool.

Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that not everybody is living the same life as you.

I just rejoined facebook. I call it giving in again, but really, I see a lot more of what's going on in the city than I could otherwise. There are some websites that try to fill this gap (sites like Meetup or do512.com) and physical bulletin boards at the coffee shops, but FB is by FAR the easiest, and sometimes the only, way to find out about things.

And yeah, you can text, you can call, but "if" everyone is on facebook, it's a lot easier. I still have friends texting, but esp. for bigger group events, Fb is "just there" for most people. It's useful to be a part of that.

I don't like it, I don't like their views on destroying privacy or discouraging pseudonyms, and I wish there was something that was better at Facebook than Facebook, but there isn't.

Honestly I am not ready to simply delete my FB account, but I absolutely use it increasingly less. Every 3rd post is straight up an ad and generally an incredibly stupid ad. Social networks have become increasingly difficult to enjoy in my opinion because they have become insanely greedy and block the actual experience for why people want to be there.

In the past 3 months I am down an Instagram account and LinkedIn. Snapchat is probably next due to the absolutely awful interface and general pointlessness.