zlacker

>>joeman+(OP)
This advice to quit social media is always a hit on HN. When I was 10 years younger I read the same thing on HN, was thoroughly convinced and quit social media. I even followed the advice of trying to stay in touch by email. Sure.

Turns out that a lot of people I knew posted huge life updates that I completely missed out on. I asked them why they didn’t tell me and they were confused. They said the posted it on social media. I can’t speak for everyone, but I know a lack of social media meant that I have lost touch with old acquaintances completely. I have a few close friends and that’s it.

Maybe that’s an ok tradeoff to make, but it’s worth knowing that before getting into it.

>>nindal+a7
> 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.

>>hypeat+8a
>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.

>>slg+UB
>> For example, if a parent died...

and yet people died quite often before social media; what did we do then?

If the realtionship is built upon the foundation of social media, it's actually not that strong, absent social media. We'll be fine.

>>skeete+0F
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".

>>s1arti+XN
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.

>>labste+LR
> 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.

>>latexr+W81
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).