Quitting Facebook - anyone doing this?

[EMS83]

I deadtivated years ago, reactivated recently for doggy FB groups, but I just hate the layout and the social feeling. Like I'm connecting with people I don't/won't even have coffee with IRL? Feels weird. I don't know why, but here feels different in that regard. I'm logically inconsistent. :D

Edited March 22, 2018 by CES2005

[Aelwydd]

We have moved (out of state) 5 times in the last 15 years - FB was a way to stay connected to people or reconnect with people. I closed my account once we were more settled in a place, but then our co-op did everything through FB (not unlike your Hockey situation), and the women’s group from church, and the drama group the kids were in, and even my local friends turned to connecting/communicating through FB (rather than email, text, and sometimes real life conversation). So I created a new account. Then we moved again and I wanted to find out things about our new homeschool community, when rec soccer started, where a good place in town to eat was, etc and it was all on FB. And this last move was hard (it’s always harder to meet people when you hit middle age and everyone is fairly established and not looking for new relationships), and I found that aside from my family and the cashier at the grocers I had no contact with anyone most days. Very lonely. FB was a place to feel a degree of connection with people I actually had a relationship with IRL, that just happened to be a thousand of miles away. I guess I post to say that there is some non-insipid appeal to FB, even some necessity when you’re involved with groups.

 

But my accounts have been closed for a while now, and I don’t think I will ever go back. Nor to IG or SnapChat or whatever. I’ve learned how to be the annoying one who says “I’m not on FB so you’ll need to email those announcements out†and I’ve come to realize I have to be a force in the counter current away from virtual connection and back to human connection.

I do get that, as someone who moved from Texas to Minnesota just a few years ago. I've chosen to leave or forego joining groups that exclusively used FB or just requested email communication on the side.

 

It is frustrating to not always be in the know. But honestly, I resent social media's intrusion so much that I just can't bring myself to give FB/ Twitter/ Snap Chat the time of day. Heck, even WTM's "exposure" concerns me, but I know SWB offers this place as a service to her fans and readers and not to exploit people. That makes the difference for me.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Aelwydd

[frogger]

I've deactivated my account multiple times. I'm not interested in 90% of what facebook offers but the other 10% drags me back. Someone posts a meal schedule for a family in need, someone wants to schedule our excercise get togethers on facebook because it's easier than email, it shares a lot more faster for crisis, or my daughter's concerts, etc.

 

But the other 90% makes me want to vomit. The echo chambers it creates. The speed at which misinformation is spread. The lack of thoughtfulness when commenting on news articles, etc. I always knew that I was obviously not the customer. It was probably close to a decade ago I posted a meme with a couple pigs chatting about how great the food and beds were at their farm and how it was all free. Of course, the farmer is in the background sharpening his knives.

 

The problem is of course, that it has become the standard meeting place because it's easy. Even email is a struggle as people don't check it or things get sent to the spam folder, etc. You have to create large lists of people. Recently videos were sent out for speech class for review. They were private messaged not on a page but the coordinator found that easier to do as sending huge files became a problem for her. So everytime I deactivate facebook I end up not wanting to be the parent that requests you do some more work for her like send a special email rather than go check the facebook page and I end up back on there.

Edited March 22, 2018 by frogger

[Lecka]

I had no idea of the level of targeted news, until about 6 months ago.

 

I feel foolish and borderline like I let myself be taken advantage of.

 

I check Facebook less than once a week since then, and recently I think I have gone a month without checking it.

 

I have changed my news sources and they are now only news sources that are associated with a reputable newspaper or NPR.

 

I don’t know why I didn’t realize but it came as a shock to me. I was reading a lot of shared news stories that I now suspect were not as accurate or lacking in bias as I thought at the time.

 

Edit — and it is disappointing to me, because I thought it was a way around only reading news that was considered newsworthy by journalistic standards, but skipped a lot of news I personally would consider of interest.

 

But now my trust is gone.

 

I hope maybe there will be some way to make it easier to verify online news without relying on pedigree. I don’t know.

 

It’s actually really disappointing to me.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Lecka

[Mergath]

But my accounts have been closed for a while now, and I don’t think I will ever go back. Nor to IG or SnapChat or whatever. I’ve learned how to be the annoying one who says “I’m not on FB so you’ll need to email those announcements out†and I’ve come to realize I have to be a force in the counter current away from virtual connection and back to human connection.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. You can connect with people virtually and in real life. I have friends I talk to online who live in different states, and local friends I hang out with in real life. Social media has its issues, to be sure, but I think the idea that we're all going to end up sitting alone in our homes only communicating via cell phone is overblown. It's kind of like the people who say, "I'll never buy a Kindle, I like REAL books." That's great, but you can own both.

[regentrude]

But my accounts have been closed for a while now, and I don’t think I will ever go back. Nor to IG or SnapChat or whatever. I’ve learned how to be the annoying one who says “I’m not on FB so you’ll need to email those announcements out†and I’ve come to realize I have to be a force in the counter current away from virtual connection and back to human connection.

 

False dichotomy between virtual and human connections. Humans can connect through virtual tools, but the connections can be as real as a face-to-face connection. It's how one chooses to use the tools that matters. I have experienced virtual media as enhancing and improving the connections I have to other people.

 

[regentrude]

It would be an interesting experiment to snooze everything I see in my feed except from posts friends as an alternative to deactivating my account. 

 

Or you can simply not use the feed at all.

If I want to see what my friend Susan posted, I can go visit her page. I don't need to rely on the stupid algorithm to deign to show me her stuff in my feed.

I ruthlessly hide everything that isn't relevant for me, am very selective about what pages I follow. So, my feed doesn't have a lot of stuff I don't care about. It just bothers me that it's so random.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by regentrude

[hjffkj]

False dichotomy between virtual and human connections. Humans can connect through virtual tools, but the connections can be as real as a face-to-face connection. It's how one chooses to use the tools that matters. I have experienced virtual media as enhancing and improving the connections I have to other people.

This. One of dh's closest friends is someone he has nevrret in person. All communication has been via social media text conversations and talking through online videogame chat features. Meeting in person is nearly impossible at this point since he lives in a different country and our funds go towards things other than travel. Not having that friendship would be a huge negative for dh and changing the tools in which they communicate would seriously limit their interactions.

[Bluegoat]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. You can connect with people virtually and in real life. I have friends I talk to online who live in different states, and local friends I hang out with in real life. Social media has its issues, to be sure, but I think the idea that we're all going to end up sitting alone in our homes only communicating via cell phone is overblown. It's kind of like the people who say, "I'll never buy a Kindle, I like REAL books." That's great, but you can own both.

 

Yes and no.

 

Obviously people have online connections and real ones.

 

But behaviour is complex.  What happens if a lot of people are finding their superficial need to connect is satisfied through something like FB?  It's still questionable whether that can meet some of the other elements social connection brings.

But will people who are superficially satisfied be going out to create those other kinds of relationships?  Especially when they are more difficult?

 

And what if a lot of people aren't going out to do that?  Social and behavioural patterns go beyond individuals.  You can't easily go out and join a community group that isn't there.

 

Historically we know for example that when television started to come into people's homes, it corresponded with a drop in all kinds of community involvement and organizations.  People chose to stay home and be entertained privately rather than going out or socializing.  Or people learned to put on a record when they wanted to listen to music, rather than have a friend play to entertain or go out to see live music. 

 

I think of it a bit like vaccinations.  You need a certain amount of investment to make it work.  Social infrastructure requires time and energy, and just enough people.  

[plansrme]

I had no idea of the level of targeted news, until about 6 months ago.

 

I feel foolish and borderline like I let myself be taken advantage of.

 

I check Facebook less than once a week since then, and recently I think I have gone a month without checking it.

 

I have changed my news sources and they are now only news sources that are associated with a reputable newspaper or NPR.

 

I don’t know why I didn’t realize but it came as a shock to me. I was reading a lot of shared news stories that I now suspect were not as accurate or lacking in bias as I thought at the time.

 

Edit — and it is disappointing to me, because I thought it was a way around only reading news that was considered newsworthy by journalistic standards, but skipped a lot of news I personally would consider of interest.

 

But now my trust is gone.

 

I hope maybe there will be some way to make it easier to verify online news without relying on pedigree. I don’t know.

 

It’s actually really disappointing to me.

 

I don't discount your experience at all, but I don't get "targeted news."  I don't get ANY news from Facebook.  If my friends share a story, I might see it, but mostly I skip over those unless it's something sweet--puppies being rescued by firemen, maybe.  I see what I want to see, which are pics of my friends' kids making snow angels or announcements about where their kids are going to college.  Your and similar posts make me wonder what sort of evil I am missing, and why???

[Carol in Cal.]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/03/my-cow-game-extracted-your-facebook-data/556214/?utm_source=atlfb

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. You can connect with people virtually and in real life. I have friends I talk to online who live in different states, and local friends I hang out with in real life. Social media has its issues, to be sure, but I think the idea that we're all going to end up sitting alone in our homes only communicating via cell phone is overblown. It's kind of like the people who say, "I'll never buy a Kindle, I like REAL books." That's great, but you can own both.

 

 

Exactly. I have a number of "real life" friends I met via online tools. I have quite a few "online" friends I value just as much as the ones I can see in person readily. 

 

 

 

I never had an illusion of privacy on FB, I am not leaving it anytime soon. The other social media options just aren't as widespread and active to warrant a full switch.

[regentrude]

I had no idea of the level of targeted news, until about 6 months ago.

I feel foolish and borderline like I let myself be taken advantage of.

I check Facebook less than once a week since then, and recently I think I have gone a month without checking it.

I have changed my news sources and they are now only news sources that are associated with a reputable newspaper or NPR.

I don’t know why I didn’t realize but it came as a shock to me. I was reading a lot of shared news stories that I now suspect were not as accurate or lacking in bias as I thought at the time.

Edit — and it is disappointing to me, because I thought it was a way around only reading news that was considered newsworthy by journalistic standards, but skipped a lot of news I personally would consider of interest.

But now my trust is gone.

I hope maybe there will be some way to make it easier to verify online news without relying on pedigree. I don’t know.

It’s actually really disappointing to me.

 

Until I heard about it after the election, I never imagined people used facebook as a source of news. Unverified stuff from dubious sources that friends forward and repost?

 

I have one friend who shares stuff like this. The information is usually not correct. I got tired of pointing out to her that she posted yet again another piece of propaganda and unfollowed her.

But it's usually pretty easy to spot. If the headline is inflammatory, it's pretty likely you have a candidate.

 

 

[regentrude]

And what if a lot of people aren't going out to do that?  Social and behavioural patterns go beyond individuals.  You can't easily go out and join a community group that isn't there.

 

yes to the bolded: that's why we seek out communities online because live groups do not exist, for example because we live in a small rural town.

 

I don't have a live homeschool circle interested in academics, so I am glad this forum exists.

I do not have access to a live poetry group, but I can join like minded people online.

 

None of these replace live interactions - they create connections that would otherwise be absent.

[SamanthaCarter]

Tapatalk is doing this too. Just sayin.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Targhee]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. You can connect with people virtually and in real life. I have friends I talk to online who live in different states, and local friends I hang out with in real life. Social media has its issues, to be sure, but I think the idea that we're all going to end up sitting alone in our homes only communicating via cell phone is overblown. It's kind of like the people who say, "I'll never buy a Kindle, I like REAL books." That's great, but you can own both.

i don’t think they are mutually exclusive, in theory. I would like to have both in healthy measure. But, I have seen a winnowing of IRL connection as we get busier and substitute virtual connection because of ease, perceived time saving. My friends call less, come over less, meet for lunch less, know less about my personal struggles. And I them. There’s something about seeing someone, their face, the way they walk, the tone in their voice, that communicates so much more about their disposition than they would ever write to the WWW. And the power in a smile is far stronger than an emoji. The sense of connection from arms around you is of greater comfort than parathesies. I can tell a friend is having a rough time by how much laundry and dishes are piled around the house, and I can step in and help without ever exchanging a word. How can we fully show compassion and preemptive action to help others in life if we aren’t entirely aware of what they are experiencing or there to act?

 

And I see very unhealthy virtual connection in many people, especially kids in the 15-25 bracket. But even my peers in the 40+ bracket seem to lean more and more to the virtual.

 

I suppose what I’m saying is I need to be a force for IRL connection because there’s obviously sufficient virtual connection.

[Targhee]

yes to the bolded: that's why we seek out communities online because live groups do not exist, for example because we live in a small rural town.

 

I don't have a live homeschool circle interested in academics, so I am glad this forum exists.

I do not have access to a live poetry group, but I can join like minded people online.

 

None of these replace live interactions - they create connections that would otherwise be absent.

Yes. I appreciate that. Greatly. But what happens when your friends and neighbors are all living through their virtual connects? What happens to human connection? I feel a bit like it’s a not so slow road down to Harlow’s monkies.

[Seasider]

i don’t think they are mutually exclusive, in theory. I would like to have both in healthy measure. But, I have seen a winnowing of IRL connection as we get busier and substitute virtual connection because of ease, perceived time saving. My friends call less, come over less, meet for lunch less, know less about my personal struggles. And I them. There’s something about seeing someone, their face, the way they walk, the tone in their voice, that communicates so much more about their disposition than they would ever write to the WWW. And the power in a smile is far stronger than an emoji. The sense of connection from arms around you is of greater comfort than parathesies. I can tell a friend is having a rough time by how much laundry and dishes are piled around the house, and I can step in and help without ever exchanging a word. How can we fully show compassion and preemptive action to help others in life if we aren’t entirely aware of what they are experiencing or there to act?

 

And I see very unhealthy virtual connection in many people, especially kids in the 15-25 bracket. But even my peers in the 40+ bracket seem to lean more and more to the virtual.

 

I suppose what I’m saying is I need to be a force for IRL connection because there’s obviously sufficient virtual connection.

I have been reading a lot lately about teen text addiction. One thing that stood out to me is that, especially for teens, understanding & developing empathy requires taking in another's tone of voice, facial expression and body language in addition to their words. When our communications are narrowed down to read-only, we actually have less empathy for those we're communicating with. For teens, they development of empathetic communication is stunted. Scary reading. But yes, we really do suffer if we don't maintain IRL relationships with face to face communication. We're often letting easy take the place of good.

[regentrude]

But what happens when your friends and neighbors are all living through their virtual connects? What happens to human connection? I feel a bit like it’s a not so slow road down to Harlow’s monkies.

 

But I am not seeing any signs of this! I see people adding and deepening connections through virtual means, not replacing live interactions.

I see people who are friends IRL brought closer and stay more in touch. I can be involved in my friends' lives even when it is not possible for us to physically visit each other. The alternative would not be more in-person visits, but infrequent letters.

 

ETA: IME, the reason people have less time for in-person hanging out is stage of life, not technology. My students (and my adult kids), at a stage of life without family obligations, spend plenty of time in face-to-face contact with other humans. My colleagues who are juggling family and career find it difficult to make the time, even when they eschew social media. I am now coming out the other end with grown up kids and have more time to socialize in person. All things have a season, and I do not observe a trend towards less interaction if I subtract the season effect.

Edited March 22, 2018 by regentrude

[hjffkj]

Yes. I appreciate that. Greatly. But what happens when your friends and neighbors are all living through their virtual connects? What happens to human connection? I feel a bit like it’s a not so slow road down to Harlow’s monkies.

Human connection can happen through virtual means. If it couldn't none of us would be here discussing this. These conversations are human connections in action. The level of connection depends on the people involved. Many people here have a deeper connection with another poster on the boards than they have with actual family members.

 

Now if what you meant was in person human connection, then I'd say that even that depends on the individual. Some people will need those connections and seek them out, some don't need them and don't seek them out. Others will need them and not know how to find them. To those people I suggest starting virtually and then turning those virtual human connections into in person human connections.

[SamanthaCarter]

<rant.>

Edited March 23, 2018 by SamanthaCarter

[Ausmumof3]

As an aside, I wish we could find a different word than "privacy" for this issue. I tend to think of privacy as being a personal issue, it's bout personal information security.

 

The issue with data mining isn't so much about that. But I can't really think of a single word or phrase to describe it.

Yeah I agree. Privacy is less of a concern than manipulation of people especially in the political sense.

[Ausmumof3]

I actually don't mind getting advertisements for products I might want to buy. It's getting ads for crap I'd never buy that annoy me. Like getting phone calls to buy time shares or all the phone calls I got when I rented for home stuff I wouldn't have bought.

lol and now you typed the words time share on your phone you are gonna get even more ads!

[Ausmumof3]

I don't get the uproar about advertisements. They don't make you buy the stuff - you still have free will and can choose to ignore the ad.

 

One of my favorite forums uses ads to finance running the forum. They are annoying, but I don't find targeted ads any more annoying than non targeted ones. They don't change my spending patterns.

 

ETA: There is also the option of clearing cookies.

I like the targeted ads. I like knowing when sales are on.

[Arcadia]

I was just cleaning up my Facebook settings and under Settings -> Ads (Ad preference) -> your information -> your categories, Facebook listed for me US politics (very liberal). Since I am totally apathetic to politics, that’s a funny assumption.

[Ausmumof3]

I have been reading a lot lately about teen text addiction. One thing that stood out to me is that, especially for teens, understanding & developing empathy requires taking in another's tone of voice, facial expression and body language in addition to their words. When our communications are narrowed down to read-only, we actually have less empathy for those we're communicating with. For teens, they development of empathetic communication is stunted. Scary reading. But yes, we really do suffer if we don't maintain IRL relationships with face to face communication. We're often letting easy take the place of good.

One thing I don't understand about this is that there's that study showing that people actually are more empathetic after reading a quality novel. Why should one kind of reading increase empathy and another decrease it?

[hjffkj]

One thing I don't understand about this is that there's that study showing that people actually are more empathetic after reading a quality novel. Why should one kind of reading increase empathy and another decrease it?

Well with a novel you get a lot if description that paints a picture in your head and helps you connect emotionally with characters and situations more than a casual text would probably.

[Ausmumof3]

Well with a novel you get a lot if description that paints a picture in your head and helps you connect emotionally with characters and situations more than a casual text would probably.

Yeah maybe it's less about the written form of communication and more about the content.

[LarlaB]

I was just cleaning up my Facebook settings and under Settings -> Ads (Ad preference) -> your information -> your categories, Facebook listed for me US politics (very liberal). Since I am totally apathetic to politics, that’s a funny assumption.

Yikes - all of my information was dead on.

 

Early technology adopters

Close Friends of Ex-Pats

Small business owners

Frequent travelers

Politic leanings

And more.

 

That creeped me out because there is a an assimilation of information not just raw data.

 

My displeasure with Facebook began a few years ago… When I realized that Facebook was curating my newsfeed… Showing me what it wanted to show me and trying to help. Actually, I just want to see information in real time from all the sources that I follow, like and interact with. Default is still most popular post or something like that, instead of most recent.

 

It’s no longer a tool for me to use as I see fit. Nope, it’s trying to be helpful, anticipate my needs or interest, and organizing information for me. I really don’t appreciate it. I don’t like being force fed information. I want to ingest it my way, my speed, my choice. It’s kind of like why I can’t stand to watch the news anymore… I don’t want to hear the network or the announcers opinion, tone or prioritization… I prefer to just hear the facts and draw the conclusions on my own.

 

I also really disliked it when FB added the following versus unfriend feature… I don’t like that you can stay friends with someone but basically not hear anything from them. I feel like it creates an abnormal way of relating. Again filtering information and relationship structure.

 

And I never ever ever get news from Facebook. No words for those that do. For my friends, the more political you are the more likely you are to be unfriended… I just don’t want to hear it. FB is the only soapbox that some people have- I get that. It’s not why I’m there.

 

I use FB to keep up with long distance friends and family.

[Mergath]

I checked my ad settings and FB thinks I'm a commuter who frequently travels. I'm a sahm who hasn't been on a real vacation since college.  :lol:

 

Apparently I'm sticking it to the man without even trying.

[Mergath]

i don’t think they are mutually exclusive, in theory. I would like to have both in healthy measure. But, I have seen a winnowing of IRL connection as we get busier and substitute virtual connection because of ease, perceived time saving. My friends call less, come over less, meet for lunch less, know less about my personal struggles. And I them. There’s something about seeing someone, their face, the way they walk, the tone in their voice, that communicates so much more about their disposition than they would ever write to the WWW. And the power in a smile is far stronger than an emoji. The sense of connection from arms around you is of greater comfort than parathesies. I can tell a friend is having a rough time by how much laundry and dishes are piled around the house, and I can step in and help without ever exchanging a word. How can we fully show compassion and preemptive action to help others in life if we aren’t entirely aware of what they are experiencing or there to act?

 

And I see very unhealthy virtual connection in many people, especially kids in the 15-25 bracket. But even my peers in the 40+ bracket seem to lean more and more to the virtual.

 

I suppose what I’m saying is I need to be a force for IRL connection because there’s obviously sufficient virtual connection.

 

I don't know. I think people probably said a lot of the same things when TVs or landline telephones first came into widespread use. We always bemoan technology as it becomes part of everyday life, but it hasn't caused the downfall of civilization yet. Most likely because for every downside of a new kind of tech, there's always one or more upsides. 

 

This idyllic image some people have of a small, close-knit community where everyone knows and cares for everyone else and brings lasagna to sick people and so on is great, but for most of us it never existed even before cell phones. All those people who don't fit into their communities but can't leave for whatever reason can now find connection and like-minded friends online, while the people who prefer their real life friends can still go visit them in real life.

 

We certainly shouldn't abandon our irl friends in favor of sitting online playing Candy Crush, but when it comes to the people I know, that's not what most of them are doing.

[Bluegoat]

I checked my ad settings and FB thinks I'm a commuter who frequently travels. I'm a sahm who hasn't been on a real vacation since college.  :lol:

 

Apparently I'm sticking it to the man without even trying.

 

Me to.  It said I was separate from family, not living in my hometown.  I live in the place I grew up in with most of my family.

 

It says I am friends of American soccer fans. I guess this might be true, but it seems odd to me.  I don't know anything about soccer.

 

It has me using the wrong browser.

 

It had my birthday, my operating system, and my email provider right.

[madteaparty]

It’s similar to all the polls asked on this board. You’d be amazed at what you can learn by doing a form of data mining here, lol.

And I’m far more likely to buy nonsense curriculum recomended here than on a random Facebook ad. As a matter of fact, I’m personally getting away from even review based websites like tripadvisor etc as I don’t find them a bit accurate anymore (now that they they take ads and own tour companies themselves). I’m more likely to follow a personal recommendation, which brings me to...half my friend list is people met on travels. I don’t think

I’ve ever clicked on a FB ad; I checked my ad categories and they’re so general I doubt they’re of use to anyone but feel free to buy and sell the fact that I use iOS and am an international traveler...Cleverly done .🙄

[Another Lynn]

Quit?  Not while the Forum is down!   :crying:  :crying:  :crying:

[Katy]

It would be an interesting experiment to snooze everything I see in my feed except from posts friends as an alternative to deactivating my account. 

 

I've been attempting to do this since before the election.  More than a year later there are still more 3rd party app posts & political posts than there are personal posts EVERY DAY.  And I don't know if there are a hundred similar sounding groups, or if there's a limit on the number of sites you can hide posts from, and instead of notifying you the list is full it just randomly deletes old blocked sites.

[Wheres Toto]

I was just cleaning up my Facebook settings and under Settings -> Ads (Ad preference) -> your information -> your categories, Facebook listed for me US politics (very liberal). Since I am totally apathetic to politics, that’s a funny assumption.

 

I just took a look at my ad preferences.   Quite a few were pretty old (like I haven't had any interest in breastfeeding in a very long time), but based on most of them I'm mainly interested in Jensen Ackles.   :laugh:  He popped up in multiple categories.

 

It had me as politically moderate.  I consider myself more liberal but I may not be adamant enough about it for it to register in their algorithms.  I've always been more likely to avoid politics on Facebook than to like or respond. I'm more aware now than I used to be, but I still avoid it there.

[Wheres Toto]

I've been attempting to do this since before the election.  More than a year later there are still more 3rd party app posts & political posts than there are personal posts EVERY DAY.  And I don't know if there are a hundred similar sounding groups, or if there's a limit on the number of sites you can hide posts from, and instead of notifying you the list is full it just randomly deletes old blocked sites.

 

I don't get very many adds, aps or political posts.  I do switch to Most Recent as soon as I get on because I hate the other feed, and I don't hesitate to hide certain ads or say they offend me.

[gracecourt]

Haven't quit, just removed the app so all I use is the messaging tool.

[amy g.]

I don't know. I think people probably said a lot of the same things when TVs or landline telephones first came into widespread use. We always bemoan technology as it becomes part of everyday life, but it hasn't caused the downfall of civilization yet. Most likely because for every downside of a new kind of tech, there's always one or more upsides.

 

This idyllic image some people have of a small, close-knit community where everyone knows and cares for everyone else and brings lasagna to sick people and so on is great, but for most of us it never existed even before cell phones. All those people who don't fit into their communities but can't leave for whatever reason can now find connection and like-minded friends online, while the people who prefer their real life friends can still go visit them in real life.

 

We certainly shouldn't abandon our irl friends in favor of sitting online playing Candy Crush, but when it comes to the people I know, that's not what most of them are doing.

I agree with you, but I also think that how much face to face human time people get is dependent on both that person’s location and also their location.

 

Some people need very little in person socialization. More is not better for them.

 

We used to live pretty isolated. We had good friends across the creek in case there was an emergency, but otherwise, it was easy to go all week without seeing anyone outside of the family.

 

Where we live now, the kids see their friends every day. Friends meet every Saturday at the coffee roaster for social time. You see your friends at the farmers market. Every single evening, there is a show or a political meeting or a museum fundraiser. None of these things revolve around technology.

 

It is certainly a different culture from what I was accustomed to.

 

I know that if Dh takes a different job and we move back to suburbia or exurbia, we will need to readjust.

 

I always find it interesting how location specific some things are.

[Targhee]

But I am not seeing any signs of this! I see people adding and deepening connections through virtual means, not replacing live interactions.

I see people who are friends IRL brought closer and stay more in touch. I can be involved in my friends' lives even when it is not possible for us to physically visit each other. The alternative would not be more in-person visits, but infrequent letters.

 

ETA: IME, the reason people have less time for in-person hanging out is stage of life, not technology. My students (and my adult kids), at a stage of life without family obligations, spend plenty of time in face-to-face contact with other humans. My colleagues who are juggling family and career find it difficult to make the time, even when they eschew social media. I am now coming out the other end with grown up kids and have more time to socialize in person. All things have a season, and I do not observe a trend towards less interaction if I subtract the season effect.

I wish I shared this experience.