facebook inflames fomo, the fear of missing out

[bcbm]

http://www.tampabay.com/features/popculture/facebook-inflames-fomo-the-fear-of-missing-out/1209295

[¿Que?]

Bladdi blah blah technology blah bladdi blah changing our social being blah blah material conditions blah

[bcbm]

yeah why would anyone be interested in that:rolleyes:

[28350]

i think this just reflects the alienation already present in capitalism. if anything, it just serves it up in a fancy hyperreal catalog. everyone else on facebook is an object, every user is a voyeur divorced from real activity

[¿Que?]

yeah why would anyone be interested in that:rolleyes:
To be honest and not ironic, I actually identify with FOMO, and I guess facebook is a big part of how I deal with those emotions.

[Ele'ill]

I have all of my friend's status updates blocked.

[Veovis]

Facebook is the life support for my terminally ill social life.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You know, it's a completely normal reaction to be bummed out at the prospect of doing nothing at home while one's friends and acquaintances have a good time elsewhere, but I what I don't understand is the need to pathologise that reaction with quasi-pseudo-medical labels and acronyms.


Now take that, and add in real-time updates and glossy Facebook photos, Twitter notifications, check-ins on Foursquare, Instagram, Tumblr. You can't avoid anyone's social life anymore, unless you lock your devices in a closet and become a neo-Luddite.

Bullshit. There are literally thousands of other websites one could be spending one's time on. Facebook apps can be tweaked to be more discreet, or deleted altogether. You don't need to lock up your device or even avoid the internet to avoid Facebook.

By this article's idiotic logic, one shouldn't drink alcohol if one doesn't want to be upset by the good fortune of one's fellow drinkers down at the pub.

[bcbm]

i was waiting for you to show up


There are Urban Dictionary entries and Facebook pages devoted to FOMO. In 2001, marketing company JWT surveyed more than 1,000 people in 2011 about FOMO. Almost three quarters of young adults said they could relate. The study found "millenials" ages 13 to 33 feel the most left out of all.

sensationalist media is just making it up tho of course

[Red Commissar]

Truth be told this is the first time I've seen that acronym. I had to look up what FOMO meant. I feel like an old guy confused by the internet.

[The Young Pioneer]

lol I hate weddings. The less things people on facebook invite me to, the better.

Also- My gf boycotted facebook, so it's not like I can tag myself "AT SO AND SO'S HOUSE." Most of the time people don't know where I am (nor do they care). Being able to "check-in" and tell your 300 online friends you haven't seen since high school that you're "AT THE PUB" or whatnot is just a way to feel self-important. Really, no one gives two shits, and those that do are already at that pub with you.

[bcbm]

facebook is making us miserable (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-gulati/facebook-impact_b_1170169.html)

[#FF0000]

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii don't think facebook or social media are to blame for that tbh. I mean there's so much other stuff going on at the same time.

And the whole FOMO thing is something I absolutely identify with (if my understanding of it is correct), but I think there's things that inflame it more than facebook, definitely. Media is the big one. I'm reminded of a thing Stewart Lee said about television aimed at young adults, where he looked at the show Skins which portrayed teenagers are very saavy, cool, and comfortable with just about everything around them including their sexuality and drugs, whereas back in the 70s there were shows like Children of the Stones or The Changes where the teenagers are all really alienated and alone.

And I think things like that, where young people are bombarded with completely unrealistic portrayals of teenage life that don't even acknowledge the alienation and loneliness of adolescence, are way more harmful than Facebook.

So, I don't think it's fair or correct to say "facebook is making us miserable". We're more miserable than ever, but it's not because of facebook. Even if facebook is conducive to it (I don't necessarily believe that's true -- the "den of competition" idea doesn't hold much water for me) the actual problem is much, much bigger.

[Ocean Seal]

Has anyone thought that the person who was being interviewed was really dumb. I mean she didn't by any reason need to invite all those people to her wedding. In fact I would only be disappointed if I weren't invited to the weddings of my closest friends. About ~90-95% of my facebook friends I couldn't give a shit who they invite.

[Rafiq]

I do remember the overall internet experience to be better without fucking Shartbook.

Facebook sucks.

[Decolonize The Left]

The problem with Facebook is that it is not used as a tool (which it is, like wiki) but seen as an end. People get on Facebook not to do something but just because.

So what we see is the progressive banalization of everyday life through the use of a social network. For example, you meet someone at a party and friend them. But you aren't friends - you don't actually know them. Then when your bday comes around you get a bunch of facebook messages but no one actually comes to see you and you feel alone (or left out). But you aren't left out because there's nothing to be in because the whole 'social network' doesn't actually exist until it is brought into existence through actual action.

- August

[Fawkes]

FOMO is a monthly dance party here, I was really confused at first as to why someone would post about that in S&E.

Anyway, what #FF said is spot on. Facebook may exacerbate things, but it's not responsible for the alienation most individuals feel within society. We live in a world that breeds isolation and stresses individualism, it's simply an effect of that.

[¿Que?]

The problem with Facebook is that it is not used as a tool (which it is, like wiki) but seen as an end. People get on Facebook not to do something but just because.

So what we see is the progressive banalization of everyday life through the use of a social network. For example, you meet someone at a party and friend them. But you aren't friends - you don't actually know them. Then when your bday comes around you get a bunch of facebook messages but no one actually comes to see you and you feel alone (or left out). But you aren't left out because there's nothing to be in because the whole 'social network' doesn't actually exist until it is brought into existence through actual action.

- August
I basically disagree with this whole line and feel it is idealist and not materialist as we should be. First of all, people are doing something when they are on facebook and they do use it as a tool for socializing, albeit mediated through technology. The fact of "banalization" is entirely subjective as there can be no objective yardstick through which to measure banality. To some banality is discussing politics and revolutionary activism, while to others, banality is seen as talking shit to your friends on facebook. It's all up to the individual.

The fact that you may not know a lot of the people you're friends with on facebook is not entirely negative. You may get to know them through their updates, although again, mediated through technology. Similarly, the Happy Birthdays you receive on facebook are one's you'd not normally have gotten. It doesn't signify true concern by those people, since they aren't even there in person for you, but it's like we used to do back in the day. Didn't want to go to a Birthday party you've been invited to? Send them a present or a card and apologize whilst making an excuse. The social significance is almost identical, while the means of achieving said significance have changed dramatically.

The "social network" indeed exists, although obviously not without action. But what I'm saying is that getting on facebook is itself the actual action necessary to bring the social network into existence. The fact that you signed up in and of itself brings you in so to speak. What significance that has may not be much, but I think it is entirely too idealist to think the means of achieving the significance doesn't also affect it.

So what I see is that we have a contradiction. In certain cases, social significance can be equated to pre-facebook social forms whereas at the same time, facebook shapes that social significance because it, as technology, is considered something with use value, and a means towards things like leisure and socialization. The contradiction is resolved by acknowledging that technology takes place of previous technology to achieve the same social significances as well as other newer forms of social significance.

[Ele'ill]

The fact that you may not know a lot of the people you're friends with on facebook is not entirely negative. You may get to know them through their updates,

This sounds so pathetic. You will never know someone by reading status updates on some social networking site. The vast majority of people here on the forum and on facebook (who you may have only met once for five minutes) are much different than you think.



although again, mediated through technology.

Not mediated, filtered.


Similarly, the Happy Birthdays you receive on facebook are one's you'd not normally have gotten. It doesn't signify true concern by those people, since they aren't even there in person for you, but it's like we used to do back in the day. Didn't want to go to a Birthday party you've been invited to? Send them a present or a card and apologize whilst making an excuse. The social significance is almost identical, while the means of achieving said significance have changed dramatically.

Not really because back in the day I wouldn't have a list of 9999999999999 people I've met for five minutes who I consider my best friends- who I intimately have grown to know through status updates like 'my cat just pooped' and 'so drunk rite now'




So what I see is that we have a contradiction. In certain cases, social significance can be equated to pre-facebook social forms whereas at the same time, facebook shapes that social significance because it, as technology, is considered something with use value, and a means towards things like leisure and socialization. The contradiction is resolved by acknowledging that technology takes place of previous technology to achieve the same social significances as well as other newer forms of social significance.

What?

[Quail]

Facebook gives a distorted view of what people's lives are like. I only take photos and put them on there when I'm doing something fun or my son's doing something cute, or whatever. I only update my status to tell people that I'm doing something interesting or sometimes I post a status about something simple and funny when I'm actually having an awful time. Most of my life is spent doing mundane stuff or suffering with my mental health issues, but from my facebook profile you'd think I was constantly having a whale of a time.

I'm guess pretty much everyone does the same as me, so what you get is a newsfeed that makes it look as though everyone else is having a fantastic time all the time. If you're already feeling lonely or whatever, then it's easy to see how that could feed into your negative frame of mind. I've looked at my newsfeed and felt like a lonely loser with no friends, but if I'm being rational then I know that's not really true, and if I'm feeling secure in my friendships and relationships, I don't care that everyone else looks like they're having fun without me because I know that I have fun and good friends too.

[¿Que?]

This sounds so pathetic. You will never know someone by reading status updates on some social networking site. The vast majority of people here on the forum and on facebook (who you may have only met once for five minutes) are much different than you think.

That's why it's mediated. You don't get to know them in the same sense as you would someone IRL, but you still know them on some level.


Not mediated, filtered.
Not sure what the difference is here. I'm using a term that's pretty common in social science literature to describe the use of technology.


Not really because back in the day I wouldn't have a list of 9999999999999 people I've met for five minutes who I consider my best friends- who I intimately have grown to know through status updates like 'my cat just pooped' and 'so drunk rite now'
That's exactly why you can't dismiss facebook or other similar technologies. Because they in fact do change the social landscape (not in a physical sense of course).

All I'm saying is that these types of technologies do have an impact on our social consciousness. That social interactions can occur on facebook and other social networking sites, and that they replace or even elaborate on social significance that existed prior to their advent.

[Decolonize The Left]

I basically disagree with this whole line and feel it is idealist and not materialist as we should be. First of all, people are doing something when they are on facebook and they do use it as a tool for socializing, albeit mediated through technology. The fact of "banalization" is entirely subjective as there can be no objective yardstick through which to measure banality. To some banality is discussing politics and revolutionary activism, while to others, banality is seen as talking shit to your friends on facebook. It's all up to the individual.

Some people use facebook as a tool. Just like some people are honest about taking food from the bulk section in a supermarket. The point isn't that it's never used as a tool, the point is that on the whole people don't see it as a tool anymore. A tool is something you use for a specific purpose. People don't use facebook for a specific purpose... they're just... on it all the time.

Banalization is when something means less because it loses its originality. You can't possibly argue that facebook is a place of enormous originality - you can't possibly argue that facebook is like New York in the early sixties where people were just coming up with new and awesome shit all the time.

The vast majority of facebook is spent re-producing links, pictures, phrases, etc... all of which are 'cute' or 'funny' for one second until the person stops thinking about it and moves on.


The fact that you may not know a lot of the people you're friends with on facebook is not entirely negative. You may get to know them through their updates, although again, mediated through technology. Similarly, the Happy Birthdays you receive on facebook are one's you'd not normally have gotten. It doesn't signify true concern by those people, since they aren't even there in person for you, but it's like we used to do back in the day. Didn't want to go to a Birthday party you've been invited to? Send them a present or a card and apologize whilst making an excuse. The social significance is almost identical, while the means of achieving said significance have changed dramatically.

I don't know what crack you're smoking, but I don't want any of it.

Happy birthday cards on the internet are in no way the same as actually receiving a card which someone made, or had to buy, and actually wrote in. Why? Well for starters, in order to actually receive a real card the person has to know where you live which means you gave them your address because you know them which means you are actually friends. Twenty bucks says you can't name the addresses of 75% of the people you're friends with on facebook. Can you?


The "social network" indeed exists, although obviously not without action. But what I'm saying is that getting on facebook is itself the actual action necessary to bring the social network into existence. The fact that you signed up in and of itself brings you in so to speak. What significance that has may not be much, but I think it is entirely too idealist to think the means of achieving the significance doesn't also affect it.

I never said that it didn't take people dancing to have a dance party.


So what I see is that we have a contradiction. In certain cases, social significance can be equated to pre-facebook social forms whereas at the same time, facebook shapes that social significance because it, as technology, is considered something with use value, and a means towards things like leisure and socialization. The contradiction is resolved by acknowledging that technology takes place of previous technology to achieve the same social significances as well as other newer forms of social significance.

I find it really, really, odd that you are trying to bring dialectical materialism into this discussion, but I'll roll with it.

Facebook's purpose as a social network =/= an actual social network

So you're whole 'resolving the contradiction' thing is negated by that simple fact. You can't have a technology replacing a technology with the same use values when the things and values are different.
My point is that actually meeting people and forming an actual network of friends has many use values: exposure to new ideas, leisure time, socialization, possible sexual gratification, etc...
The use values of facebook may involve some of these things, but it is only a filter for them - it is not actually them. You do not actually talk to your friend on facebook. You do not actually see your friend on facebook. So they are not analogous 'technological advances' because one is a technology (facebook) and the other is actually happening (life).

We are not digital creatures - we are human beings. Any attempt to reproduce humanity on a digital scale can be very, very useful, but it is not a substitute for actual life.

- August

[Ele'ill]

That's why it's mediated. You don't get to know them in the same sense as you would someone IRL, but you still know them on some level.

Not really as a person.


Not sure what the difference is here. I'm using a term that's pretty common in social science literature to describe the use of technology.

Mediated implies that it's more of a facilitation process but it isn't. It's a filter. In a lot of ways it's almost the opposite.



That's exactly why you can't dismiss facebook or other similar technologies. Because they in fact do change the social landscape (not in a physical sense of course).

All I'm saying is that these types of technologies do have an impact on our social consciousness.

This wasn't the conversation we were having.

[¿Que?]

Some people use facebook as a tool. Just like some people are honest about taking food from the bulk section in a supermarket. The point isn't that it's never used as a tool, the point is that on the whole people don't see it as a tool anymore. A tool is something you use for a specific purpose. People don't use facebook for a specific purpose... they're just... on it all the time.
I don't know what you mean by, "they're just on it." They're doing something with it, therefore they are using it as a tool, whether they perceive it as a tool is inconsequential to the point I'm making.


Banalization is when something means less because it loses its originality. You can't possibly argue that facebook is a place of enormous originality - you can't possibly argue that facebook is like New York in the early sixties where people were just coming up with new and awesome shit all the time.

The vast majority of facebook is spent re-producing links, pictures, phrases, etc... all of which are 'cute' or 'funny' for one second until the person stops thinking about it and moves on.
I'll go ahead and concede, partly, by not going full relativist on this one. I believe there is an enormous potential for creativity on facebook and similar "social networking" sites, albeit people aren't really using it to its full potential.



I don't know what crack you're smoking, but I don't want any of it.

Happy birthday cards on the internet are in no way the same as actually receiving a card which someone made, or had to buy, and actually wrote in. Why? Well for starters, in order to actually receive a real card the person has to know where you live which means you gave them your address because you know them which means you are actually friends. Twenty bucks says you can't name the addresses of 75% of the people you're friends with on facebook. Can you?But you're saying that because you know someone's address, then that's some measure of knowing a person. Be that as it may, as communication moves away from what we used to call snail mail, knowing someone's address becomes less important so much as knowing where someone lives. Secondly, why not use knowing someone's birthday as a similar measure? In this case, people know things about their facebook friends that they wouldn't otherwise know about them, like their birthday. Yes, the relationship may be nothing more than an acquaintance, but facebook has transformed what we know about acquaintances. People post all sorts of stupid personal shit, like where they are at a given time, where they're going, and even sometimes, their addresses. So I don't think not knowing someone's specific address really refutes my point.

And I'm not saying it's the same. What I'm saying is that it serves the same (or similar) purposes. Such as, for example, a horse and a car are not the same, but have the same use-value.



I find it really, really, odd that you are trying to bring dialectical materialism into this discussion, but I'll roll with it.

Facebook's purpose as a social network =/= an actual social network

So you're whole 'resolving the contradiction' thing is negated by that simple fact. You can't have a technology replacing a technology with the same use values when the things and values are different.
My point is that actually meeting people and forming an actual network of friends has many use values: exposure to new ideas, leisure time, socialization, possible sexual gratification, etc...
The use values of facebook may involve some of these things, but it is only a filter for them - it is not actually them. You do not actually talk to your friend on facebook. You do not actually see your friend on facebook. So they are not analogous 'technological advances' because one is a technology (facebook) and the other is actually happening (life).

We are not digital creatures - we are human beings. Any attempt to reproduce humanity on a digital scale can be very, very useful, but it is not a substitute for actual life.

- August
I think the problem here is that you're seeing a distinction between face-to-face interactions and technology mediated interactions, which I don't disagree. Where you lose me is when you try to argue that technology mediated social interactions are not really social interactions, but something other than that. And that's really an ontological question - basically, at what point does distinction become different, or to put it another way, at what point does something that differs from something else become something that is categorically distinct. But as I define "social" broadly enough (and correctly I might add) to include technologically mediated interactions, then I can conclude with relative consistency that facebook and other "social networking" sites, do in fact constitute "social interactions."

And I won't get into this last point too much except to say that facebook interactions often and easily have IRL consequences.

[¿Que?]

Not really as a person.
That depends on what you mean by that. Maybe not as a friend, but as a person in some abstract sense, then yes, definitely as a person.


Mediated implies that it's more of a facilitation process but it isn't. It's a filter. In a lot of ways it's almost the opposite.
I don't understand what is being filtered. Because of the internet, we now know more about each other than we used to. This sounds like facilitation to me. The issue is not that things are being left out, rather it's exactly the opposite. We probably know too much about each other, and the real issue is lack of privacy.



This wasn't the conversation we were having.
refresh my memory then.

[Decolonize The Left]

I don't know what you mean by, "they're just on it." They're doing something with it, therefore they are using it as a tool, whether they perceive it as a tool is inconsequential to the point I'm making.

Quite the contrary. 'Surfing' facebook, i.e. reading random updates on your main page etc... is not doing something.

In order to use something as a tool, you need to understand that you have a need which cannot be fulfilled without an outside aid, and then you use this aid for a stated purpose. (I cannot put a nail into a 2x4, so I use my hammer to do so).
If you were to actually use facebook as a tool, it'd take you 2-5 minutes to accomplish your task. But you surely wouldn't be aimlessly looking at pics of someone who knows someone you know for 20 minutes and call the webpage a 'tool' for casually stalking someone you don't know.


I'll go ahead and concede, partly, by not going full relativist on this one. I believe there is an enormous potential for creativity on facebook and similar "social networking" sites, albeit people aren't really using it to its full potential.

I agree entirely about the potential of the internet and creativity.


But you're saying that because you know someone's address, then that's some measure of knowing a person. Be that as it may, as communication moves away from what we used to call snail mail, knowing someone's address becomes less important so much as knowing where someone lives.

I believe you misunderstood my point.

I'm saying that in order to know someone's address so you can send them a letter, you need to have had prior contact with them so that they felt comfortable enough to give you their address. In short, you had an actual interaction whereby they decided that you were trustworthy enough to know where they live.
This does not happen when you learn someone's name (or not even, you can find people without so much as a location and picture) and facebook friend them.


Secondly, why not use knowing someone's birthday as a similar measure? In this case, people know things about their facebook friends that they wouldn't otherwise know about them, like their birthday. Yes, the relationship may be nothing more than an acquaintance, but facebook has transformed what we know about acquaintances. People post all sorts of stupid personal shit, like where they are at a given time, where they're going, and even sometimes, their addresses. So I don't think not knowing someone's specific address really refutes my point.

The address argument refuted your claim that a facebook birthday message was the same thing as an actual letter.


And I'm not saying it's the same. What I'm saying is that it serves the same (or similar) purposes. Such as, for example, a horse and a car are not the same, but have the same use-value.

Very well, but I believe my argument refuted this as well. For meaning becomes contingent upon relationships between objects/people/things. On facebook, there are no actual, physical relationships. The reason why that blanket you had as a child means more to you than the expense one in the window of the store is due to physical history you and your blanket shared in the past.


I think the problem here is that you're seeing a distinction between face-to-face interactions and technology mediated interactions, which I don't disagree. Where you lose me is when you try to argue that technology mediated social interactions are not really social interactions, but something other than that. And that's really an ontological question - basically, at what point does distinction become different, or to put it another way, at what point does something that differs from something else become something that is categorically distinct. But as I define "social" broadly enough (and correctly I might add) to include technologically mediated interactions, then I can conclude with relative consistency that facebook and other "social networking" sites, do in fact constitute "social interactions."

Think of this: how many times do you misinterpret/misunderstand someone on this forum? They typed one thing, you read and responded, and they were like 'dude, that wasn't what I was saying at all.'

Now think of when you're actually talking to someone and all the nuances of their speech and hand-gestures, etc... You know the saying that most communication is non-verbal, etc... This is all lost via the medium of the internet.

My claim is that without this physical interaction, you do not have an actual relationship with someone. Period.

So with this claim in mind, facebook is highly problematic because it encourages you to think that you do have actual relationships with your 'friends' when in fact these relationships are becoming weaker due to the reliance upon this medium for communication.

- August

[Vanguard1917]

Palmer, an emotional, self-described "warm fuzzy," has grown thicker skin after working with clients. But she admits to feeling hurt by Facebook photos of trips she wasn't invited on. And it's easy to take the anxiety to more irrational places. Her twin sister, she said, recently got sucked into a total stranger's baby shower pictures.


Some people really do need to grow up a bit. Is this what happens to mankind when 30 becomes the new 10?

[¿Que?]

My claim is that without this physical interaction, you do not have an actual relationship with someone. Period.

So with this claim in mind, facebook is highly problematic because it encourages you to think that you do have actual relationships with your 'friends' when in fact these relationships are becoming weaker due to the reliance upon this medium for communication.

- August
And what I'm saying is that without physical interaction you do have actual relationships with people, albeit of a different sort. These relationships may be weaker than what we're used to calling relationships, however, they constitute a type of relationship that really cannot be compared to anything in the past. Relationships are not becoming weaker, because through facebook, hundreds and more, people have more access to you than they would have before. Whomever you had "real" (what I would call concrete) relationships with, you would still have those relationships, regardless of facebook. EVeryone else, is just value added, or in other words, you get what you would not normally get.

Facebook is hurting our relationships, but not because of lack of anything, but because of too much...too much information, not enough privacy.

[Firebrand]

I quit facebook at the point where I realised that basically it is a medium for endlessly doing small talk. I hate doing small talk in person, let alone on the internet, so why would I want to be plugged into a mechanism that constanly provides and demands small talk. It's boring and annoying and I refuse to play that game. Pleasant side effect more people actually want to meet up with me since I quit facebook. Possibly they just want to check i still exist.

[Decolonize The Left]

I apologize for the delay of my reply - I am currently quite busy with getting a new job, etc..


And what I'm saying is that without physical interaction you do have actual relationships with people, albeit of a different sort. These relationships may be weaker than what we're used to calling relationships, however, they constitute a type of relationship that really cannot be compared to anything in the past.

I agree and disagree. I agree that we cannot compare interpersonal relationships within the internet era to any other era, yet a relationship is a connection or association between two or more individuals. With the advent of the internet and the ability to connect or associate with everyone/anyone, the relative importance of the term diminishes. If you are connected to everyone, you are connected to no one.


Relationships are not becoming weaker, because through facebook, hundreds and more, people have more access to you than they would have before.

This isn't coherent. Just because someone knows more about you doesn't mean that your relationship is stronger.

For example: I can know every single tiny detail of the life of a celebrity, down to what they eat for breakfast and whether or not they enjoyed that one episode of The Price is Right - this means nothing in regards to having a relationship with this person. In fact, in this scenario I could know everything there is to know and still have no relationship with them at all.

So you see that information is not synonymous with relationships. A relationship can exist with little to no information at all - likewise, tons of information can be possessed with no relationship present.


Whomever you had "real" (what I would call concrete) relationships with, you would still have those relationships, regardless of facebook. EVeryone else, is just value added, or in other words, you get what you would not normally get.

This is redundant. It's obvious that the internet adds information to everything, it's a giant web of information. Furthermore, it's obvious that being connected on the internet adds information to a relationship; my point is that this is irrelevant to the actual relationship itself. In fact, my point is that in many ways this hurts the actual relationship.


Facebook is hurting our relationships, but not because of lack of anything, but because of too much...too much information, not enough privacy.

Freedom of information is freedom of information.

I find it relatively easy to retain my privacy online. I use multiple pseudonyms for my various endeavors with multiples emails, profiles, etc... I also don't use facebook; well, I use it under a fictitious profile which only 10 or so people are aware of.

Facebook isn't hurting our relationships because of a lack of 'privacy.' It's hurting our relationships because it is substituting concrete reality with a digital world. We live in a physical world yet we 'relate/connect' in a digital one. This is unhealthy.

- August

[¿Que?]

I apologize for the delay of my reply - I am currently quite busy with getting a new job, etc..
Good luck on your new job!

I agree and disagree. I agree that we cannot compare interpersonal relationships within the internet era to any other era, yet a relationship is a connection or association between two or more individuals. With the advent of the internet and the ability to connect or associate with everyone/anyone, the relative importance of the term diminishes. If you are connected to everyone, you are connected to no one.
So what you are talking about is the relative importance of the term "relationship" or similarly, as in facebook, the term "friend," and similar user interaction terminology employed by social media companies? I don't agree that our real relationships become trivialized simply because the words we use to describe them become trivialized, if that's what you're getting at. My real friends will continue to be my real friends, even if the word itself becomes meaningless, because ultimately what matters are the concrete relationships, and these take on different names as pertains to social and cultural context.

This isn't coherent. Just because someone knows more about you doesn't mean that your relationship is stronger.

For example: I can know every single tiny detail of the life of a celebrity, down to what they eat for breakfast and whether or not they enjoyed that one episode of The Price is Right - this means nothing in regards to having a relationship with this person. In fact, in this scenario I could know everything there is to know and still have no relationship with them at all.


So you see that information is not synonymous with relationships. A relationship can exist with little to no information at all - likewise, tons of information can be possessed with no relationship present.But it doesn't mean relationships are becoming weaker, either. In any case, it makes sense not to equate the quality of a relationship with the quantity of information people possess about the other, that would be reductionist. However, it makes no sense to say that no relationship exists. Surely, no relationship in a psychological sense, as in interpersonal relationships, but that wasn't specified. Knowing anything about anyone creates some kind of relationship, it may be trivial, but it is a sort of relationship. Maybe not an interpersonal relationship, but it is. So please note that I am merely elaborating on what you said here, because I distinguished between your use (meant to imply interpersonal relationship) and my use (relationship as a category to describe a direct or indirect interaction between two persons or things). Although I'm note sure if interaction is the correct term but I think I'm being clear enough.


This is redundant. It's obvious that the internet adds information to everything, it's a giant web of information. Furthermore, it's obvious that being connected on the internet adds information to a relationship; my point is that this is irrelevant to the actual relationship itself. In fact, my point is that in many ways this hurts the actual relationship.
I don't disagree. The lack of privacy can hurt relationships, but I don't think relationships are overall deteriorating in any way. In fact, I think that is completely nonesensical.



Freedom of information is freedom of information.

I find it relatively easy to retain my privacy online. I use multiple pseudonyms for my various endeavors with multiples emails, profiles, etc... I also don't use facebook; well, I use it under a fictitious profile which only 10 or so people are aware of.
As do I.


Facebook isn't hurting our relationships because of a lack of 'privacy.' It's hurting our relationships because it is substituting concrete reality with a digital world. We live in a physical world yet we 'relate/connect' in a digital one. This is unhealthy.

- August
You could say exactly the same thing about the landline telephone, and indeed some people did.
And spending too much time on the computer is probably not healthy because of a lot of things.

But I don't agree that there is a general trend in Western society in which relationships are being deteriorated because of social media. Mainly, because I think that there are too many value judgements to be made in order for that statement to be true. Even if you found that face-to-face time between people has decreased over the years, you have to prove how that affects the quality of the time currently being observed. But quality will always be a subjective call, so I maintain that the thesis is incoherent.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Reminds me of this old Cracked article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html

I take what I read there not super seriously, of course, but it does serve as a useful repository of links on occassion.