> Turns out that a lot of people I knew posted huge life updates that I completely missed out on
This doesn't really seem that important if your only method of knowing this was a post blasted to hundreds (or thousands) of people. Or, to put it another way: if you mattered, you would've gotten a direct message or call from them.
I'd argue that social media has normalized keeping up with people who aren't supposed to be part of your life forever. But, we should take a step back and realize that not everything should or will last forever. If you cross paths again then you can catch up, but having life updates constantly? No thanks.
>if you mattered, you would've gotten a direct message or call from them.
That ignores the asymmetry of a lot of life events. For example, if a parent died, I'm not going to call everyone in my life to tell them, I would have more important stuff on my mind. I might post it on social media and then the onus is on other people to reach out to me. And if someone doesn't reach out, it will hurt the relationship a little even if I'm not conscience of it because when I think of people who were there for me during a tough time, the friend who never knew my parent died wouldn't come to mind.
also in the old days, your friend bob would have told cory, "hey, did you hear alice's dad died? we should all go out for drinks". but we live in the bowling alone era, where we're increasingly isolated.
quitting social media is not, on its own, going to fix your social life. and being on social media can make you more connected, or more miserable. the responsibility is yours
I'm a firm believer being loosely connected to so many people isn't the fix many seem to think it is. I find shallow connections, which is about all social media can support IMO, are worthless at best and detrimental at worst.
YMMV, but my quality of life increased in ways I can't even begin to describe by severing all the dozens or perhaps hundreds of shallow connections social media was encouraging me to cling to.
With the saved time and energy, I've been able to cultivate far fewer-- but much deeper and more (mutually) fulfilling-- connections with those who are _actually_ important.
Couldn't agree more. I haven't deleted my Facebook account, but I no longer sign into it (I kept it because of event invitations, but at this point no one I know uses it for that anymore either). I have a little over 1,000 "friends" there. Back when I scrolled my feed multiple times per day, I read so many things about so many people who I hadn't interacted with outside of Facebook posts for years and years and years. I read so many things about so many people who I didn't even interact with on Facebook, let alone outside of it.
I don't miss any of that. Those connections were beyond shallow, and weren't adding anything positive or useful to my life.
This kind of comment always makes me wonder, are the people doing this doing well financially to afford cutting off all those "loose" connections with people like that? Because I couldn't imagine just destroying these relationships for no reason when I myself have benefited vastly from keeping them alive, even if barely communicating at all with these people.
I think this advice is generally harmful to networking as someone grows, which is vital in today's society
I don't think this discussion is about professional networking. It's about personal and social connections. If quitting Facebook makes you un-/under-employed then I think you're Doing Life Wrong.
GP mentions "severing" those connections, but I think that's even too strong a phrasing. There wasn't really anything there in the first place, so there wasn't anything to sever. Simply not reading someone else's social media posts anymore, when you didn't really interact with them outside Facebook (or for some people even inside Facebook) isn't really severing anything.
I wouldn't agree it is "vital," but that definitely depends on perspective and one's goals, as well as the baseline level of privilege one enjoys.
If someone's goal is to achieve CEO and/or the top 1%, certainly every single connection could hold extricable value. I'm perfectly fine hovering somewhere in the middle, even knowing I have the capability to achieve much more. My future is uncertain; I probably won't retire when I would have liked. I've accepted that, and choose to live in the present rather than focusing on the future. I know at least I won't die miserable tomorrow.
I don't deny I could have done better financially by maintaining the status quo. Now that I think of it, I'm doing worse financially than when I was using facebook & twitter. I had more money, and my career was progressing at a much higher rate, but I was inconsolable. Without the money, and without the accompanying social media-imposed drag, I see the world more clearly. My relationships are stronger with my wife, kids, and close friends. I am much happier.
3. How exactly are remote connections helping? In the Western world, for example, people you haven't interacted with for months and months in real life for sure won't help you financially. For jobs stuff like LinkedIn is probably better, plus regular chats on 1 instant messenger. You don't need Instagram to keep up with them.
With GitHub and Discord, these 3 are really hard to boycott for programmers (even more to publicly shame people for using them). And yet, we must dissent.
I had only financial losses from these loose connections. Nobody will shove profit down your throat, but there are many greedy people that will try to extract profit from you. I basically work as a bank for them, muh connections, lol.
> but we live in the bowling alone era, where we're increasingly isolated
What I see over years is that, especially in developers online groups, any usual and normal way of socializing is stigmatized. I remember reading comments about how lazy people who socialize with friends are and how we are better if we code every evening. I remember people being proud about spending christmas coding supposedly being superior to the rest of the family that is socializing.
Now we are proud if we remove ourselves from social media.
It is always the same - however other people socialize is wrong, they are stupid and lazy. We remove ourselves, because it is superior to not participate. Eventually those places die out or change, but we do not like the new places either.
And in each iteration, we expect other people to do work of keeping and managing relationships while feeling superior over not doing that.
I don't think the parent poster was arguing to exclude themselves from social life or do coding instead of talking with people. They merely argued that it's better to have fewer but meaningful and deep connections with people you genuinely care about (and they care about you), rather than having a 1000 meaningless connections with people who are basically strangers on facebook.
The role social media plays is in encouraging large numbers of superficial relationships, rather than a small handful of deep ones. It stands to reason: I don't need facebook to keep in touch with a dozen close family and friends. I can do that perfectly well in person, or over phone calls/messages. What the various social media apps did was kill the close circle of friends in favor of having 1000s of followers and turn everyone into a one-way broadcaster.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not disagreeing on principle.
You make it sound as if something was lost, maybe recently. In the grand scheme of things I'm not that old (41) but I don't even remember how that would have worked out, because I wasn't old enough to have people's parents die before social media, at least in my social circles. Yes, of course you'd hear about grandparents and such from your immediate friends but that's usually a handful and people would maybe not be shaken as much. I agree with you that social media doesn't have to mean "blasting it to hundreds or thousands of followers", but it's a thing where I actually liked Facebook. Not only techies, and getting enough updates from people who are not your closest friends that you have things to talk about (as in reference) when you met again (or talked synchronously, or privately).
In my circle, very few people maintain a social media presence. I cannot remember posting anything on social media myself - except maybe a job update on LinkedIn, and some light anonymous trolling on X. I don't have Facebook or Instagram accounts and so I never visit those sites anymore (as they require an account to read). Spending a lot of time posting on social media is seen as unintelligent, attention whoring, and a waste of time.
My mother died when I was in college, before social media was a thing. I told a few closer friends about it, and asked them to spread the news and to tell others that I didn't really want to talk about it. I was missing a few weeks of the semester because of it, and knew that people would ask me where I'd been once I was back, and knew I wouldn't have the emotional bandwidth to tell everyone the story over and over and over, and accept their condolences gracefully.
It makes me really sad if it's true that people assume that when they post big, difficult stuff like that on social media, anyone who doesn't see it doesn't care about them. Even for people who are active on social media, the feed and post promotion algorithms make it fairly likely that a decent chunk of people who really should see that post might not see it.
> I would have more important stuff on my mind. I might post it on social media and then the onus is on other people to reach out to me.
That seems so bizarre. Just 20+ years ago this sort of sympathy seeking broadcasting action was associated with mental health illness, like Munchausen Biproxy. Yes, back in the day if tragedy happened people would take deliberate effort to call each other.
20 years ago, death announcements were expected and normal. They appeared in places people were expected to see - including local newspapers. You would also see death announcement being read in churche, posted in buildings etc. 20 years ago people met in person more often and you learned this stuff via gossip and word of mouth. Not being told to you personally, but being told to a whole group of people.
The aggressiveness of your response is absurd. No, it was not seen as a mental health illness at all.
When you expect personal one to one call, it is equivalent of removing yourself from other social structures in the past. You can do it, but your relationships will weaken and eventually die out. Just like it happened in the past.
It's very country specific. I'm from Romania and I think there were obituaries in newspapers, but I'm having a hard time thinking of people I know that did it.
You read the obituaries in your local paper, “oh, so and so has passed away”, you don’t know them particularly well, might or might not go to the funeral.
Posting it to social media, then thinking if whoever doesn’t contact you to… what? “Sorry for your loss”? “My condolences” … hurts your relationship with that person?
> Posting it to social media, then thinking if whoever doesn’t contact you to… what? “Sorry for your loss”? “My condolences” … hurts your relationship with that person?
That's not what anyone said, you're out here fighting ghosts.
> And if someone doesn't reach out, it will hurt the relationship a little even if I'm not conscience of it because when I think of people who were there for me during a tough time, the friend who never knew my parent died wouldn't come to mind.
Right but it's not 20+ years ago. 20+ years ago when my family visited relatives abroad, our relatives would get to the airport and often have to wait for our delayed flight because they had no way of knowing and half the day would be lost. If your flight arrived early then you just waited. That was normal. Now we update each other over a web messenger, arrive at our destination, hop onto the free WiFi, then wait until our relatives greet us.
> 20+ years ago when my family visited relatives abroad, our relatives would get to the airport and often have to wait for our delayed flight because they had no way of knowing
Apart from phoning the airline or airport and checking whether the flight was on time. We used to do that all the time 30+ years ago.
Most of us would not have even done that, though yes, the option was there, but that sort of thing was much more popular 40+ years ago.
There was another discussion where this came up on HN recently, but people get quite emotionally defensive when you start scrutinizing their reasons for staying on social media, so it is hard to have an honest conversation about it without a bunch of hyperbolic takes.
In my experience, it was designed to be addictive, partly by using our own behavior against us and partly by vindicating the desire for attention. The idea that we need to be sharing every aspect of our personal narrative with the world is problematic, as it turns out, but we are so steeped in it that's there's no chance of purifying those waters, again.
To your point, yes, there was some aspect of this back in the day, what with obituaries in newspapers being out there to both acknowledge that a person lived, but also put out the call to any old acquaintances to come say goodbye, but it was a laughable effort by today's standards of maximum self-aggrandizing and competitive social engagement. We have to ask ourselves if that is a socially and mentally healthy position to be in, which is an admittedly scary question.
> but it was a laughable effort by today's standards of maximum self-aggrandizing and competitive social engagement.
What does this mean?
> The idea that we need to be sharing every aspect of our personal narrative with the world is problematic
I know about one or two people who does this. And it's far away from an obituary.
I'm not quite sure I get what you a saying. I just meant in my upbringing it was quite normal to share publicly when someone died. And they still do it today.
Apologies if my wording was too vague. I am using 'Self-aggrandizing' to mean a high exhibition of self-importance, or to put it another way, advertising one's self in a way that makes minor events or details seem bigger than they are. I am using 'competitive social engagement' as an alternative phrase to "Keeping up with the Joneses" which illustrates comparing yourself to your neighbors in terms of status, wealth, moral fiber, etc.
The invention of Social Media propelled us into extreme versions of these two very-human aspects of our psychology, which I believe to be both dangerous and ill-fated.
My intention was not to attack in any way, I just thought your reference to obituaries was an interesting link to our past prior to social media that was worth exploring and comparing. In a way, we can think of our Facebook profile as an extended obituary since that data is all accessible after we die. In fact, I am experiencing this on Instagram, having just lost a friend on New Year's Day and sitting down to peruse his old Instagram posts for the happy memories therein. Your comment just got me thinking, so I decided to expound on it.
added: I should maybe clarify that I'm of an age that remembers what the world was like before Social Media and the Internet as we know it today. The differences when I compare those two halves of my life tend to be alarmingly drastic, which is something that warrants examination, to me, since many HN readers might be a bit too young to remember, so from their perspective, Social Media habits are likely more normalized.
> Just 20+ years ago this sort of sympathy seeking broadcasting action was associated with mental health illness, like Munchausen Biproxy.
Do you have a reference for the claim that the diagnostic criteria for Munchausen By Proxy (or Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another) once included broadcast-type notices when a family member dies? The DSM-IV would have been in effect 20 years ago, and while version 5 doesn't have that in its warning signs, I guess it could have changed from the previous version?
We got a real pot, meet kettle situation here. It is absolutely wild to suggest that doing something standard like arranging for an obituary in the local newspaper would be viewed as a sign of mental illness.
On Facebook at least, the algorithm is heavily tuned to prioritize major life events: births, deaths, graduations, marriages, etc. Occasionally those posts get filtered out but usually they do get prioritized near the top of your feed.
For the people who you care about, you can contact them directly and set up a time to meet to catch up. Or catch up over text or email. Or start a messaging group with mutual friends and keep each other up to date that way.
My feeling is that if you only get updates about someone's life via their blasts on social media, you're not really friends. So why do you need to hear about all that stuff?
Right. You post it on social media to the exact same reason you would post it in the newspaper.
And you would have to understand socialization if you wanted to know why people published life events to the newspaper - births, deaths, graduations, marriages, etc.
Not everything in the world is for your bestest friends. It’s OK to not have close friends.
It must be quite common sense to actively contact the people you know were friends or family to your parents. Not necessarily by phone unless you also know them well, but by email or text or whatever contact details your parents have in their contact book.
I very much would think your parents would expect that of their children.
>I'm not going to call everyone in my life to tell them
It's particularly the people in your parents life you should inform, not necessarily the people in your life.
Don't forget that your social media network is not the same as your parent's social media network (if at all they use it).
> I might post it on social media and then the onus is on other people to reach out to me.
Nobody can expect that everyone is on social media, let alone a specific platform. You typically tell your family and some close friends and they will spread the word.
If someone literally thinks it's going to hurt our relationship that I am not following their facebook nonsense I am totally happy to not have them as friend anymore
When my father died, the last thing on my mind was trying to tell as many people as possible. I didn't (and still don't) have any social media accounts so that was out of the question but I didn't tell almost anyone for a long time until it came up in conversation.
you would find out at church or any number of the 3rd places you shared.
Yes, that may have been better, but that doesn't mean deleting social media automatically sends you back in time. Doubly so if all of your friends are still on social media and using it as the primary form of communication.
Imagine deleting your email and telephone in 1999 and saying "if they were really my friend, they would drive/fly to my house and talk to me".
In 1999 we had obits and mail, just like in 1899. Of course now all of the newspapers are gone (what’s black and white and dead all over?), so notifying the local community is much harder than 25 years ago.
Also some people back then would brag about not having a TV, the same way vegans still do today.
> Also some people back then would brag about not having a TV, the same way vegans still do today.
This is the toupée fallacy mixed in with something else I haven’t yet put a name on.
Most vegans don’t brag about being vegan, just like most TVless people don’t brag about not having a TV. Some people are assholes and brag about anything, and some of those do the things you mentioned. It’s orders of magnitude more common to see people complaining about vegans (or, for an HN example, Apple users) than the actual bragging. It’s a meme, not the reality.
Cool idea, but it’s based on my own experience in life, from a girlfriend and various people in college. And even a newspaper article I read literally this morning. Vegan folks who I knew and talked to every day.
That said I could have used airplane pilots for the same example (also based on personal experience).
You only know about the people who let you know. You have no idea how many vegans or airplane pilots you encounter regularly who never tell you. A small sample is driving the reputation of the whole.
For people with whom you talk every day, it’s no surprise that you know. It’s bound to come up but I doubt it happened on your first conversation with everyone. If it did, you were hanging out with a weird group. If they knew each other, it’s normal that they’d talk about a shared interest. Just like people who hang out on HN would be likely to discuss tech when meeting in person.
I have no doubt you found your share of asshole vegans, just like there are assholes who make it a point to make everyone know they eat meat.
Though it is important to distinguish a true asshole from someone simply sharing an experience. Saying “no, thanks, I’m vegan” when offered a bite of a meat sandwich is not bragging, it’s context. Unfortunately, too many people take it to be a judgement when it most often is not.
I never called any vegans assholes. Personality quirks are not wrong, they actually make life fun.
I guess the thing I’m getting from you is I shouldn’t comment on my own observations because of toupee bias, and I shouldn’t comment on other people’s common observations because they are just memes an not real. Is there an acceptable threshold for situational humor short of a scientific study? If so, what is it?
I know, I didn’t say you did. In my first reply I said:
> Some people are assholes and brag about anything
And it’s that narrow definition I’ve been using throughout.
> I guess the thing I’m getting from you is I shouldn’t comment on my own observations
No, of course that’s not it. We can all comment on our own observations, but it’s also important to differentiate from what we each observe as individuals and what we believe the world to be. We shouldn’t let our limited view of the world cloud our understanding of how it is.
> Is there an acceptable threshold for situational humor short of a scientific study?
Were you doing situational humour? I reread your comments and can’t find the joke¹. Judging from the grey colour in the original comment, it doesn’t look like I was the only one to miss it if that was the intention.
Though I will say unambiguously that I don’t think you’re arguing in bad faith. From my perspective, this has been a cordial chat.
¹ I guess the newspaper comment was a joke, but calling that situational seems like a stretch.
It’s cordial here, yes, though some other things happened in my life which I shouldn’t have let intrude into this discussion.
HN in general does not like humorous tones, or at least has a mixed reception, I notice a lot of times where my comments go back and forth between +3/-2. This one probably is a worse one. It’s observational like Seinfeld, but then I don’t really like Seinfeld’s style so I probably shouldn’t have written it in the first place.
That said a well written joke at the right time has gotten me over +50. But as I said I probably shouldn’t have been writing here at all that day, nothing good was going to be posted.
Very interesting thought. I didn’t know the toupée itself neither the fallacy. Looks like a cousin of the famous survivor bias and both are children of a "observational bias" category. This is only my humble layman guess.
The video was interesting too, I’ll have a look at that channel. Thanks for sharing.
> This doesn't really seem that important if your only method of knowing this was a post
The landscape of human relationships is deep and broad an varied, and if making bold assumptions about what other people should value is your starting point, you're liable to miss a lot of potential connections.
>you're liable to miss a lot of potential connections.
are you really? If you only notice that it's Bob's birthday because you get a FB reminder and the only form of communication is a post on their timeline once a year that's not a connection, that's like talking to your neighbor about the weather out of courtesy because it's awkward to say nothing at all.
The reason a lot of people miss out on life nowadays is not because they have too few connections but because they waste their time on fake ones. Life's short, instead of trying to warm up some high school friendship that's going nowhere, focus everything you have on the few people around you that matter. Cutting connections is as valuable a skill as making them, and an increasingly lost art.
Free for 8 years-ish. Yeah. its hard to look people up. Oh im in this town, yeah wonder what happened to xyz, no chance of finding them or shooting them a message. FB connections are so low key and keeping people around makes them easier to find and stay in touch with, IMO.
But there's also lots of upsides. I guess I dont know one way or the other.
You write like somehow there would be something to miss out on by not valuing keeping up with people who are far away and most likely have no place in our lives.(by far away I mean you don’t actually get to talk or meet with them or even chat by messanger or so, even if they could live in the same city - I have friends who live far away but we actually meet at least once a year and chat once a week we are far in distance but not far in contact)
I would argue that there is much to miss on by wasting time looking up Jenny from primary school when you have your kids, friends and family who you meet day to day.
There is actually an option to run into mental health issues that we know social media is causing.
> You write like somehow there would be something to miss out on by not valuing keeping up with people who are far away...
Yes, absolutely. The paths our lives take can lead us to have more in common with someone we knew in the past then when we first knew them. And there's a lot of value in having a history with someone, compared to getting to know someone new from scratch. Maintaining loose contact takes virtually no effort but can lead to meaningful interactions down the road.
Yes, I have a few very good remote friends which I meet only rarely, but when it's one of the best kind of things.
However most of my "Facebook friends" were shallow faint contacts, where paths may have been close for a while but went apart as each went on with their lives. No more scrolling through which bar they visited, how their kids are doing, or which TV show they were watching didn't take anything from my life, while it encouraged me to reach out more actively to people I really care about, as I didn't "rely" on passive information anymore, assuming to hear about "relevant" events, but became interested in them and shared things which wouldn't make "public" social media.
I think I would add that: if I would be posting stuff and then someone who was an acquaintance only - would hit up a conversation about my wedding photos from 5 years ago how he remembers all were great, or would go with conversation about tv show I just added on my profile.
I would not feel comfortable, to say the least, I would feel creeped out. I would start thinking what kind of MLM he joined or if he looks to borrow money as last resort as no one closer would lend him any.
If that would be my close friend that would be OK.
I think my main argument is having history with someone is not checking his profile.
If I run today into someone from primary school we probably will connect over that.
If that someone will start talking how he have seen photos of my trips or my life events or how he totally loves band I added to my profile half a year ago - without ever sending me even happy new years message - I will be creeped out - and totally not “aw cool you follow my posts”.
Maybe I could've worded that better, but I was just providing perspective on the obsessive nature that we have on social media now. IMO, it's not "normal" to keep up with acquaintances and people from past times. They're no longer part of your life and you need to let go. If others find the life updates useful and beneficial to them, then so be it. I don't care either way.
> IMO, it's not "normal" to keep up with acquaintances and people from past times.
Fully recognising that you said "IMO", I'll say that keeping up with acquaintances and people from the past is normal in my culture. Social media helps to make that more direct and easier to manage than the gossipy grapevine of yore.
What's normal depends on your culture and context, of course, and I suspect that's not true in yours — but it is in mine, so ditching something like Facebook is just out of the question for me and many people whose cultures place a heavy emphasis on those connections between people.
The middle ground for me has been to check Facebook less and less, accelerated by the algorithm delivering me fewer life updates and more slop reposted from reddit.
if the goal is easier to manage and more direct, I'd argue it's not that important. Is your culture 20 years old? What did they do before?
There are lots of things in the world where the work required IS the value. Think of a hand written note from your CEO; is it still valuable if it was their assistant and a picture of the signature? "keeping in touch" is not inheriently valuable; it's the effort required that makes it so.
> Is your culture 20 years old? What did they do before?
Our people barely left our homelands, our pā and marae, for fear of them being stolen by pākeha-let governments who urbanised the rest of us into poverty.
Now that people in my culture are reconnecting with the importance of whakapapa for whānau, hapū, and iwi, which is a far wider set of people than just one’s immediate family in typical anglospherical thought, there has to be a way to reincorporate all the urbanised people who live far away. Social media, at least initially, provides that.
But thank you for your “is your culture only 20 years old” crack. It’s always refreshing to have the needs of my culture explained to me by someone from without it with an air of armchair authority, as though I or we don’t know what’s good for ourselves to meet our own needs.
I agree with you but I think we are kind of the oddballs at this point.
It does seem quite normal now to keep up with people you haven't seen in 10 years in person and will never see again. Maybe even people you would go out of your way to make sure you don't see in person but you can give them a thumbs up when they post a picture of their lunch.
I have no idea why anyone does this but it would be hard for me to say that not having any social media like us is "normal".
Due to some unknown circumstances this might not be true for this person, but it’s certainly true for a lot of people. Social media used in that context is effectively automating human relationships. It used to take effort to have a handful of friends, now you can have hundreds. Somewhere along the way though, friendship turned from active effort to passive status.
People you met and appreciated in the past evolve into friends and friends evolve into people you met and appreciated in the past. Each person can change "the status" multiple times, depending on circumstances. However, if you decide that weaker relationships dont matter, they will never grow into friendships. They will die out.
And to large extend that is what is happening with "loneliness epidemics". We dont care to keep relationships and see it as negative. Then we dont have relationships and act all shocked.
> People you met and appreciated in the past evolve into friends and friends evolve into people you met and appreciated in the past. Each person can change "the status" multiple times, depending on circumstances.
Agree with that.
> However, if you decide that weaker relationships dont matter, they will never grow into friendships. They will die out.
I don't think putting thumbs up on social media posts count as "growing into friendship".
> And to large extend that is what is happening with "loneliness epidemics".
I am not even sure a _loneliness epidemics_ exists but if that is true it is mostly self induced and artificial relationship pretense on social medias do not help. Quite the contrary. If you get out of social medias you actually realize your only chance to make relationships is by going outside and meet people that are close to you. And this is how you build relationships that matters and prevent loneliness.
> We dont care to keep relationships and see it as negative. Then we dont have relationships and act all shocked.
I am an expatriate and moved countries several times. I have lost touch with a lot of my old friends as well as a huge part of my larger family because I don't use facebook and instagram. That doesn't mean I don't have relationships. I made new relationships locally, and am keeping in touch with people who are not in the same country but that are as eager as I am to travel once in a while to see me.
OTOH last few years I have called a number of friends who are living abroad or several hours of train/plane/driving away from me at least once a year. Some gave unsolicited apologies and promises that next time they will be the one calling, or that they have plan to visit my area. They never called back, nor visited me and I didn't prioritized them enough to try to visit them either. This year I didn't even try to call them. I just moved them from the _friends_ mental drawer to the _acquaintance_ mental drawer. This is very likely what they passively did 2 years ago already while I was still actively trying to stay in touch.
If for some reason I travel close enough to their last known place, I may try to contact them but it is very likely that I may never see most of them. But I don't need to follow what they are posting on social medias nor publish stuff I am living and pretend that I or they care because really we do not, or not enough for it to matter.
> I don't think putting thumbs up on social media posts count as "growing into friendship".
The interactions I have seen on social media did not consisted from thumbs up only.
> If you get out of social medias you actually realize your only chance to make relationships is by going outside and meet people that are close to you.
What actually happen to most people is that they stop showing up in meetups organized through social media (majority of them) and over time loose those relationships. From what I have seen, removing yourself from social media does not create new relationships for most people.
You do not build relationships by NOT being somewhere.
> The interactions I have seen on social media did not consisted from thumbs up only.
Not necessarily but in my experience unless those people meet on a semi regular basis (as long as 2 years), or have a special bond (family) this usually slides toward superficiality.
> What actually happen to most people is that they stop showing up in meetups organized through social media (majority of them) and over time loose those relationships. From what I have seen, removing yourself from social media does not create new relationships for most people.
People don't only meet other people through meetups organized in social medias. I usually get invitations to events through calls and messages from friends, coworkers and ex-coworkers and meet other people there where we exchange phone numbers. I meet people on the road while cycling, some through their dance/yoga/crossfit/crochet class, etc. Several of my good friends I met over they years was by seeing them every day in my train commute and ending up talking to. I've met some random people in a bar and ending up sharing tapas with them and going home with their numbers.
Yes, agreed. For me, quitting social media went hand in hand with a recognition that I maintained superficial contact with a large number of old friends. My relationship with these people was already “illusory”, or at least unsatisfying. Now my relationships are the product of active work, which I find more valuable, even if it means maintaining contact with a smaller group of close contacts (outside my day to day relationships). It doesn’t mean my relationship with old friends and family has died… we just have a lot more to catch-up about when we talk to each other!
Agreed. I also went through it and have found no difficulty with throwing away Facebook, Twitter, etc and sticking to only direct or group messaging.
Some people HAVE gone through the "but I said in X group chat" like above, but it was all unimportant life events that they were happy to fill me in on there instead. All major things people told me directly. Just because I quit social media didn't mean I wasn't aware of the death of my dog from a world away within 2 minutes of it happening.
But why, though? If all you have is a shallow social-media connection with someone, why is it nice to know what's going on in their lives?
We have a finite amount of time and energy to maintain connections with people. Even shallow connections eat into that. I'd rather spend that time and energy on deeper connections. And while it's customary to say "but sure, I guess other people have different views on this, so to each their own", I... well, I honestly believe it's unhealthy to obsessively try to maintain all these sorts of shallow connections. I think this is a part of why I read about how so many people are lonely these days and have trouble forming friendships and keeping them going.
Because sometimes you rekindle relationships that have drifted apart but you still stayed somewhat tethered to thanks to social media.
I rekindled a friendship with an old friend when I realized he was visiting the same foreign country as I was. Funny enough his wife is a mutual college friend of ours whom he had lost touch with but only met again after reconnecting on social media. I also reconnected with her through my friend.
Sometimes, those casual connections can spark something more meaningful down the line or just bring small moments of joy! Like, for instance, seeing an old friend’s travel photos or knowing that you're school friend had a baby
My partner (who's family is living 10000km away on another side of an ocean) learned her estranged father died a few days ago and that he had been terminally ill for months.
Apparently someone from that part of the family had posted it on facebook but she didn't notice it as she do not visit it every day.
This doesn't really seem that important if your only method of knowing this was a post blasted to hundreds (or thousands) of people. Or, to put it another way: if you mattered, you would've gotten a direct message or call from them.
I'd argue that social media has normalized keeping up with people who aren't supposed to be part of your life forever. But, we should take a step back and realize that not everything should or will last forever. If you cross paths again then you can catch up, but having life updates constantly? No thanks.