Personally I've just stopped using social media because there's no reason to have the type of reach it gives you unless you're, well, advertising (whether that's yourself and/or personal brand, a product, a political position, etc.). However, even though rare, every once in a few years I really do need to reach out to someone I don't regularly talk to digitally or get in touch with someone I was much more connected to previously. I think there's truly a place for a hyper pared down "global phone book" type of application.
In terms of real connections: I prefer to share things that matter in my life directly with people who care to hear about it. And, notably it has advantages you lose on social platforms like being able to read the room, having a pretense of trust and assumption of goodwill and intent, synchronous engagement that makes true debate possible, and most importantly speech is not regulated. You can have a beer and speak your mind amongst real friends.
In my opinion, it's not real connections that are being devalued, it's needing to uphold the illusion that you have 1600 of them that is tiring and obnoxious (and simply not possible). Where I think you're onto something is that I'd say it's less important that real connections start IRL. It's perfectly normal to meet someone online and become close, possibly eventually turning into an IRL friendship, too. So I agree that it's less important to maintain "friendships" in the way that those of us who had FB in HS thought was going to matter in a social media world. But I don't agree that that means "real" connections are being devalued. Most people are just fine with ~10 real good friends and some family here and there.
>I think there's truly a place for a hyper pared down "global phone book" type of application.
We have this: Facebook. At least that's what I use it for. I keep a list of most of my friends there, and use it to chat with many of them, including video chat. I don't post anything, ever, and almost never look at anyone else's posts. It's just a glorified "friend phone book and chat app".
I don't have a problem with people using Facebook this way -- that's cool if it fills this function for you!
It is unfortunate though that as "a glorified phone book" Facebook engages in so many practices that are creepy and intrusive. I think that if Facebook did just provide phonebook-like functionality I would be so interested in using it. Instead, it feels more like an application(s) built to serve ads that happens to provide some phonebook functionality.
But, ultimately Meta's business model won't change for users like me -- and I don't blame them. And they don't necessarily need to change because although everyone seems to dislike the practices they engage in, nobody really quits Facebook.
IMO there is little value in actually quitting facebook.
If you aren't using their apps and block their embeds on third-party sites it just sits there and allows you to be what our parents described as a global phone book.
I deleted everything I uploaded, unfollowed everyone, locked it down and made a backup. Most of their indeed very creepy practices are optional.
edit: this is also probably a good learning for other services: have a working non obstrusive mode to retain almost-off users.
>I think that if Facebook did just provide phonebook-like functionality I would be so interested in using it. Instead, it feels more like an application(s) built to serve ads that happens to provide some phonebook functionality.
For me, this is exactly how it works. I never see any ads.
Sure, that's how I use it too. I'm saying it would be nice to have an application that's just that without all the other abusive BS. I think everyone could get onboard that train. Right now FB doesn't fully work because a non-trivial portion of people I know refuse to use FB anymore. That's great! But something needs to fill the "global phonebook" void. I'd pay $3 a month to have my name in a global phonebook and in return get access to one with the sole feature of being able to make my own list and govern who is allowed to see certain fields. Maybe I should just put my details in DNS...
But by participating in Facebook (even just leaving your account there!) you contribute to the network effect and make Facebook seem more useful to others.
This helps Facebook snare other, less tech-savvy individuals in their dark patterns of ads and engagement. I don't it goes without saying that people who spend too much time on Facebook these days suffer psychologically for it.
I know that for you it's just a "friend phone book and chat app" but for others it's basically a casino. Consider deleting your account and keeping in touch with your friends via other mediums (email, text, letters, and phone calls go a long way!) instead, for the good of the community at large.
>But by participating in Facebook (even just leaving your account there!) you contribute to the network effect and make Facebook seem more useful to others. This helps Facebook snare other, less tech-savvy individuals
That sucks, but there's no better alternative just yet.
>Consider deleting your account and keeping in touch with your friends via other mediums (email, text, letters, and phone calls go a long way!)
Ok, I've considered it. No. It's stupid. Phone calls are horrifically expensive and don't have video, and letters cost a fortune to send across oceans. If you want to be a Luddite, go ahead.
This is probably the reason I was trying to limit my friend count to the very minimal figure (a little over 100), as I wanted to share my story to those who cared to listen to it. Though since Facebook started to deploy Discovery Engine, I have decided to stop using it (Deactivate the main account, leave Messenger available for contacts). I wanted to be more "connected", not having them scattered.
There are actual close friends, and then there are people you know or care about to some degree. Dunbar's number (somewhere between 100 and 250) describes the latter.
That may include extended family, neighbors, coworkers, your acquaintances from hobbies/bar/church/whatever. They're not all close friends or immediate family, but still people that you sometimes interact with, and might want to contact.
Not really care for, but the number of relationships you can keep track of:
"By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships."
I wouldn't say that the figure of Facebook friends is an indication of number of people I really cared. I do care some of them (sometimes sending wishes for them), but a majority of them are either my classmate in high school, a junior in university, a (former) co-worker, or someone whom I met in social gathering that shared common interests and wanted to hear/talk with them. It's like the use of Facebook as a directory since everyone has one.
Conversely, there are plenty of friends whom I know personally, but did not connect via Facebook (we use IM for that). This may probably be counted towards the close friends I really cared for; only few (no more than 10) people fits this criteria of mine.
At the time I deleted my Facebook account, I had a total of twenty friends. And all of them were people from where I moved away from, or people that moved away from me.
Family, and local friends, I did not friend on Facebook, because I was going to see you anyway.
My mom asked why I wouldn't 'friend' her, and I responded that I talked to her on the phone for 60-90 minutes every single weekend. Without fail. Plus, I used to snail mail her printed photos on a regular basis.
When she died, I found two boxes crammed with every photo I ever sent her.
I had a difficult time trying to understand your writing, but in the end it seems that you’re actually proving the point of the person that you’re disagreeing with? Your example of having 1600 friends and then most people being content with ~10 friends is exactly what the commenter meant with devaluing social connections.
I dunno, it made sense to me. The simplified thesis (perhaps with my own slight spin on it) is that a huge number of connections never really existed, and what's observed as a devaluation of things with inherent value is really more like a realization that the things in question had little to no real value, and a calculus that does assign them great value (without significantly diluting the word "friend") is flawed.
In terms of real connections: I prefer to share things that matter in my life directly with people who care to hear about it. And, notably it has advantages you lose on social platforms like being able to read the room, having a pretense of trust and assumption of goodwill and intent, synchronous engagement that makes true debate possible, and most importantly speech is not regulated. You can have a beer and speak your mind amongst real friends.
In my opinion, it's not real connections that are being devalued, it's needing to uphold the illusion that you have 1600 of them that is tiring and obnoxious (and simply not possible). Where I think you're onto something is that I'd say it's less important that real connections start IRL. It's perfectly normal to meet someone online and become close, possibly eventually turning into an IRL friendship, too. So I agree that it's less important to maintain "friendships" in the way that those of us who had FB in HS thought was going to matter in a social media world. But I don't agree that that means "real" connections are being devalued. Most people are just fine with ~10 real good friends and some family here and there.