Is it possible to have a social life or make friends without facebook?

College Life
61

<p>Hahahahaha.</p>

<p>No, I’m not being paid by Facebook. You’re flat out delusional if you think Facebook isn’t a huge deal and won’t be for a very long time. Social networking is here to stay, period, and Facebook is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) players in the field. Then again, you don’t even use Facebook, so by default your opinion is invalid. Come back after you’ve used it for awhile.</p>

<p>Also, I love how you think ‘walled garden’ websites will fail and “open networks” will thrive. Myspace is pretty much the definition of “open network” and we all know how that ended up. Not everyone is a web developer who wants to code their page nor is everyone an open-source geek. Most people don’t care and just want something simple, streamlined, and easy to use. Hence the success of Facebook and Apple in the consumer market vs. Myspace and Linux.</p>

62

<p>I didn’t say social networking isn’t here to stay. I said that FB sucks and they want all your info, but don’t want you to be able to do anything outside of their site. (Not really anyway.) In the words of the CEO himself, “If you’re doing something you don’t want anyone else to know about, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it.”</p>

<p>Well that is all well and good to say, but that isn’t reality. EVERYONE has things in their life that they don’t want EVERYONE to know about. Yes I’m aware that FB has privacy settings (that they purposely make difficult to navigate for some users). But the fact is their site is nothing but a data mine and they shun activity outside of their own site.</p>

<p>I am not delusional Pan… obviously FB is a big deal. Everyone knows that. Like I said, I was invited to join it WAY before 99+% of people who are on there because I was at a private college whose students were invited to join. I didn’t though because even then it was scary and ridiculous how much info they wanted just to sign up and SEE their site.</p>

<p>That isn’t what the internet is supposed to be about, and there are gonna be a lot of people in our generation who are sorry in the future for stupidly putting their info out there for all to see. If FB has it, make no mistake that it is there for “all to see” in some manner of speaking.</p>

<p>I find the way that some people (such as yourself) so vehemently (sp?) defend FB and their practices–no matter what they do–a bit crazy. It’s almost like a cult. People act as if their entire life is owned and run by and depends on FB. Like I said, it will not last. No one is saying it isn’t a “big deal.” But they are NOT invincible. It is only the arrogance of youth and inexperience that would be so short-sighted. Not that I am “old,” but some people seem to have very short memories.</p>

<p>To answer the OP’s question though, yes you can have a social life without FB. And for those people who can’t, they have a serious lack of interpersonal skills. If the only way some people know about social events is on FB, that tells me your “friends” aren’t really friends at all. And that’s the truth, like it or not.</p>

<p>P.S. Just because I was able to see through FB back in 2004 when it started and didn’t sign up doesn’t mean by opinion is “invalid.” If anything, an argument could be made that it makes it MORE valid. Oh the howling about privacy that is all over the internet now about FB. I saw it way before it happened. And if you think FB isn’t selling your data, you are naive indeed.</p>

<p>Say what you want about an open network versus a walled garden. The internet itself was built to be open. So by definition, FB will inevitably fall. I’m not saying immediately. But it will. It is hard for me to understand the feeble mind that is so caught up in the “moment” as to be unable to realize that. FB will not disappear, but it will be abandoned at some point. They will still boast a large user base though, since they make it hell to get rid of an account.</p>

63

<p>This guy tells the TRUTH about FB:
[YouTube</a> - Facebook sucks: Why I quit Facebook the Facebook Cult](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyE8L9dRyNw]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyE8L9dRyNw)</p>

<p>It is worth watching, and it is the truth, whether anyone chooses to admit it or not. One gem from this vid: “… and if they don’t contact me, they’re not really my friends.”</p>

<p>Now… I am going to get dressed and get ready to go out… with my REAL friends… who care about me enough to contact me outside of FB. :slight_smile: Byebye.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbqJBp1eiw0&NR=1[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbqJBp1eiw0&NR=1&lt;/a&gt;
lol</p>

64

<p>Uh, if you didn’t have such a feeble mind, you’d realize</p>

<p>a) you’re only required to put up as much information as you want
b) it’s not designed to replace, nor does it, replace real life interactions.
c) it’s designed to connect people who you don’t see often. How exactly am I supposed to talk to friends who’ve gone home over the summer? Call them up? Oh wait, that’s another form of technology. What about friends from high school? I guess I should just forget about all the cool people from K-12 because you say so?
d) it’s a great way to meet up with people and get to know/stay in touch with someone you’ve just met. How else do you stay in contact with a new friend? Text them? Nvrmnd tht txts r rlly hard 2 read n communicate w/.</p>

<p>That video was hilariously bad. Nothing like a bumbling kid sitting in his darkened room telling me to go outside and meet people at 12am for coffee. My favorite line: “It’s more like crap-book, cause it’s crap.” What a visionary.</p>

65

<p>People seem to be under the delusion that my “friends” on Facebook are people I consider to be “friends” in the conventional use of the term. They’re not, despite the similar wording. Rather, my friends on Facebook are the people that I like to stay connected to on a very casual level.</p>

66

<p>If you want to realize just how ridiculous facebook is–and what a waste of time it is for most people, just watch this South Park episode (entitled “You have 0 friends”)–it’s hilarious:</p>

<p>[South</a> Park Episode Player - South Park: You Have 0 Friends](<a href=“http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267112]South”>http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/267112)</p>

<p>I use facebook–but I log in about once every 6 weeks–since it good for almost nothing but keeping in touch with old friends whose phone numbers you may have forgotten or misplaced. Other than that, it’s a total waste of time and effort–and the south park episode explains why in great detail.</p>

<p>P.S. I have a friend who works for the company that makes all the games that facebook links to. He finds it amazing that people will pay real money for fake “money” to use in these games. He also said that facebook is going to create the new games themselves, because they realize what a money making venture they are–and they want a monopoly over these games–which make much more money than the ad revenue. (He therefore has already started looking for a new job.)</p>

67

<p>Yeah, the games are a waste of time. So is accumulating friends that you don’t actually know.</p>

<p>I’ve already stated the benefits Facebook provides that aren’t as efficient on other platforms.</p>

68

<p>Well I’m back, and checking on this thread. I find it quite interesting that there seems to be a conversation emerging about FB and what it’s good (or not good) for. I don’t just mean here, I mean within our culture in general. Anyway, so after reading what other people have added, I have this to say.</p>

<p>The thing is, people seem to forget that we were not intended to stay in touch forever with everyone we’ve ever known, or even everyone we’ve ever liked. It’s not healthy, really. We aren’t meant to “stay in touch” with everyone from high school or from any other time in life. Someone who is really lucky might have 3 really good friends from high school that are worth staying in touch with for the rest of their life. Most people don’t even have that. Life moves in chapters, or at the very least, it moves forward. FB causes people to compulsively hold on to people and things that really should be in their past and serve no real purpose in their future.</p>

<p>As far as staying in touch with people you’ve just met, all I can say is… how completely absurd and sad if the way people keep in touch with someone they’ve just met is on FB. If you met someone who you actually want to know better, then how about spending time with them? Call them or even send them a text and get together. It seems like people are afraid of any contact that seems too real, even talking on the phone. The idea of FB being some kind of necessity to stay in touch with people you’ve met is just so… well to me, it is pretty sad. I don’t even mean that in a condesending way. It really is sad if someone thinks that’s the only (or even the best) way to keep in touch with someone new.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer real conversation. And truthfully, anyone who REALLY matters in your life WILL be available to you outside of FB…</p>

69

<p>pandem, just to correct an error, the guy in that video didn’t say “crap book.” He said crack book. That was pretty obvious in the context of what he was said. We obviously disagree about the quality of what he had to say. Friends of mine who do use FB even agree with the points he made. He was just telling the truth.</p>

70

<p>Omg calcruzer thank you for posting that SP episode. TOO funny. (Watching it now.)</p>

71

<p>hollymaria:

</p>

<p>Wow, you put it so nicely – I totally agree with you! To add on to your point about how FB makes us hold on to past memories of social circles, the recent ability/tendency for FB to ‘suggest’ friends for you based on your friends’ friend lists is seriously menacing. It utterly thins the theory of “five degrees of separation” out of shape into only one degree of separation. Does this make sense? With FB, you’re only one person (i.e. FB friend) away from knowing so much about the people you were meant to be done with (e.g. folks you went to HS with). </p>

<p>Also it can be depressing for some of us to subconsciously compare our lives to the lives of others based on things like their “latest” pictures showcasing their lively activities, their wall posts, FB statuses, etc. Not to mention, we’re prone to prematurely judge people based on what’s on their ‘Interests/Bio/About me’ sections. And all of this is so often subconscious. </p>

<p>The one thing I will say though, which you may disagree with (or I’m actually not sure, maybe you’ll agree) is that with acquaintances or classmates, FB can actually serve as an effective facilitator. I mean, wouldn’t it be more comfortable to simply FB a classmate questions about an assignment/club activity as opposed to calling them on the phone? You’d have the protection of the mindset of ‘FB being a culturally accepted convention, used by all college students,’ against these acquaintances judging you for messaging them. </p>

<p>Or maybe it’s just me that thinks talking on the phone with anyone is an intimate activity – I’m anxious of awkward silences on the phone with everyone except maybe close friends.</p>

72

<p>Oliver Twist said:</p>

<p>"The one thing I will say though, which you may disagree with (or I’m actually not sure, maybe you’ll agree) is that with acquaintances or classmates, FB can actually serve as an effective facilitator. I mean, wouldn’t it be more comfortable to simply FB a classmate questions about an assignment/club activity as opposed to calling them on the phone? You’d have the protection of the mindset of ‘FB being a culturally accepted convention, used by all college students,’ against these acquaintances judging you for messaging them. </p>

<p>Or maybe it’s just me that thinks talking on the phone with anyone is an intimate activity – I’m anxious of awkward silences on the phone with everyone except maybe close friends."</p>

<p>(I’m sorry. I couldn’t find where to makethe quote box. I must be missing it.)</p>

<p>To respond to what you said, I can understand that some people feel uncomfortable calling others who they don’t know very well. I guess I personally think that is a step in the wrong direction for social interaction. I don’t necessarily think it’s a good thing that so many people are used to filtering their interactions so much. And the more we do it, the less skill we acquire or attain at dealing with such situations.</p>

<p>I don’t think it’s entirely your fault that you feel that way. It’s the age we live in, and I know for a fact that you’re not alone. I have had classmates that wanted me to join FB to interact with them about a project. I refused. As a result, we talked and probably felt a lot more comfortable with each other than we would have otherwise. We got way more done in person than we ever would have “working” through FB anyway.</p>

<p>I just think people should be trying to be more adept at interacting with strangers on a personal level, not keeping everyone at a distance. Everyone was a stranger at one time, except immediate family. Anyway, that’s how I feel about it. Even when MySpace was still the thing, I didn’t add nearly as many people as wanted to. It’s not personal. I just refused to bother with having people on there who are of no significance to my life. I also refused to have people on there who never made an attempt to contact me outside of MySpace. It just seems pointless to me.</p>

<p>Edited to add just this tiny point about the difficulty of sending text messages. I don’t really understand how a text message is difficult unless someone was using a phone that makes you enter letter by letter. Most phones today have predictive technology. It is very rare that I have to actually type a word in letter by letter on my phone. In fact, I never do unless it’s some weird thing that isn’t really a word but is an acronym… or something like that. Not that I’m saying I think texting is such an awesome way to communicate, but to me it seems like a much more immediate way to send a quick message than FB.</p>

<p>Usually for me, if I have something very short to say to someone, it is because I’m about to be doing something with them in person and I need a response from them right away. I don’t see how sending such messages on FB would work the same way unless the person was on FB all the time. Even if you were going by people who have it connected on their phone… which wouldn’t be a good idea because a lot of people don’t. But if you were going by this, I could still say… what’s the point? It acheives the exact same thing.</p>

73

<p>I have one more thing to say about this for right now. I’m sorry if I’m crowding the thread, I just find it very interesting.</p>

<p>Regarding Facebook, privacy, and personal information… which I am bringing up because it was stated that “you’re only required to put up as much information as you want”… well, not really…</p>

<p>When I was first asked to join Facebook, it was back when it was still called “thefacebook.” Information they gathered was anything but voluntary. It was required for sign up… to even see the site. It was also verified. There was nothing voluntary whatsoever about the information I was required to give in order to use the site. This is why I didn’t join. I was offended that a company would feel themselves entitled to my personal information just for me to SEE their product.</p>

<p>This may be different now in theory, but in practice it is basically the same. MOST people still put way too much personal and identifying information about themselves on Facebook. In reality, even the use of your real name is too much (which almost everyone there uses). Here is why.</p>

<p>Even the stuff you think you are only sharing with certain people is still available for search. There are many deep web search services that find this type of information for marketers or even potential employers. One such site is pipl.com. If you search for yourself there you will likely be shocked by how much info is available that easily, even though it is one of the less sinister providers of such services. And it doesn’t stop there. What you see is only the tip of the iceberg. Companies pay to be able to have access to even more information. There are even links on the site that say “Find out everything about _______ in seconds.” They really aren’t kidding.</p>

<p>Mark Zuckerburg (CEO of FB, which you all probably already know) has had no ethics whatsoever regarding user privacy or exploitation of their information FROM THE BEGINNING of “thefacebook.” Before the site ever left Harvard, he used it to look up members who identified themselves as members of the Crimson (Harvard newspaper) after they did not respond as he desired to a certain situation.</p>

<p>He then examined these members’ failed logins in order to determine the passwords to these people’s emails. Where there were failed logins, he used them to access the newspaper editors’ Harvard email accounts. THIS IS THE GUY who is in charge of a site that is probably the biggest data mine of personal information ever. What makes it worse is that people put this information on FB falsely (and naively, I might add) thinking that it is secure.</p>

<p>The case with the editors of the newspaper was settled outside of court. This is the text of one of the emails Mark found, which was sent from one editor to another. It is speaking about him, if that wasn’t clear.</p>

<p>From: Elisabeth Susan Theodore
To: Timothy John McGinn
Subject: Re: Follow-up</p>

<p>OK, he did seem very sleazy. And I thought that some of his answers to the questions were not very direct or open. I also thought that his reaction to the website was very very weird. But, even if it’s true so what? It’s an [redacted] thing to do but it’s not illegal, right?</p>

<p>My guess is that the “redacted” part was something to the effect of “It’s an ******* thing to do” or some other negative description. Hmmmm… wonder what they were talking about.</p>

<p>[How</a> Mark Zuckerberg Hacked The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked the Harvard Crimson”>How Mark Zuckerberg Hacked the Harvard Crimson)</p>

<p>Edit: Oliver_Twist, I just realized that last post looked like I was directing my text message rant at you. I wasn’t.</p>

74

<p>TBH
You don’t HAVE to have facebook
But there have been times where facebook has helped my group of friends organize social events</p>

75

<p>Eh, facebook is a great way to catch up on what other people are doing, share media, and generally do everything else you’d normally do if your friends were actually there with you. I always thought that the “I have real friends, so why should I bother with facebook” argument was silly; I have both best friends and friendly acquaintances added, and obviously I will interact more often with my real friends on FB than with the others, and that certainly doesn’t detract from the bonds any of us share. </p>

<p>Another argument I’ve always thought was silly was the idea that online networking is somehow the wrong step in social development and interaction. Very few people will pass over going out with friends to stay on facebook. Texting, calling, webcamming, and hanging out all occur in addition to facebook. People use internet interaction as a form of staying in touch in times when doing so in other forms would be difficult or impossible, not as a replacement for face-to-face interaction. </p>

<p>The idea that FB causes people to branch out too far in an effort to remain in constant contact with people in their past and acquaintances they’ve barely met is ridiculous. Contrary to what non-users think, no one actually tries to keep updated, minute-by-minute, on every single person’s life on their friend’s list, with the exception of hardcore creepers. </p>

<p>Finally, the idea that the internet just serves to distance people is ludicrous. Before the internet there were phones, and before phones was a mailing system. Such forms of interaction are a result of distance, not a factor for distancing. Like I said before, most people and all socially normal people will opt to go out for a night together rather than talk on FB’s crappy IM service. People use FB when bored at home, on quiet nights, while doing homework. People may update off of their phones, but that takes a few seconds max, exactly like texting. </p>

<p>Regarding privacy issues, that is definitely a real problem. But then again, unless you’re blocking cookies from every single site you visit (and you won’t get much in terms of content if you do that), then you’re continuously transmitting data whether you’re aware of it or not. That’s why internet ads are always so content specific, aimed at a target audience in which you’ve been documented to be a part of. The issues regarding Facebook are not so serious as to justify not using it, in my opinion. With some common sense and active user protection, you won’t have any problems. If you’re stupid enough to use one master password for every site you visit, you deserve to get hacked. </p>

<p>tl;dr: Facebook is used in conjunction with other forms of social interaction. It is not a be-all, end-all. Very few people are so socially ■■■■■■■■ that they will use FB as their entire form of communication with other people. Security risks are real; however, they do not justify foregoing the use of FB imo, as common sense will help you avoid any problems. With the exception of addicts, most people see FB as just another form of communication.</p>

76

<p>Thank you Engineer. Saved me from writing a long scathing post.</p>

<p>The idea that somehow one is meant to leave friends behind is ridiculous. Are we meant to talk to each other via telephone? </p>

<p>Said it before, and I’ll say it again: everything is technology, and just because Facebook is new and telephones are old makes absolutely no difference.</p>

77

<p>Just to add to this discussion, I think in the current day fewer teenagers are using facebook religiously, or the rate at which teenagers are joining facebook is slowing down. I read in the metro that the average age of facebook users is now between 35 and 50 because old people want to see their long lost friends.</p>

<p>Yet teenagers are still able to maintain friendships in today’s world. Facebook is helpful, but you don’t have to use it for more than 10 minutes a day.</p>

<p>Here’s a source, it wasn’t my source though: <a href=“http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102973[/url]”>http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=102973&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

. Yeah I will add that facebook cares nothing for its users and that it is incredibly easy to hack. Even if you use one password for everything else, get a different one for facebook. <a href=“http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/[/url]”>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

78

<p>Communicating in a phone conversation and communicating online are not comparable at all. I don’t see how someone could even say that. It’s like the difference between cyber sex and real sex. Lol… Or maybe the difference between cyber sex and phone sex. But… you get the idea.</p>

<p>I wasn’t suggesting that we all must “leave all our friends behind.” I just think maybe it takes some people longer than others to accept that certain people aren’t relevant to their lives anymore. I was saying that only real friends are worth the effort to bring forward with you in life. I don’t mean “real friends” as in “real friends” vs “fb friends.” I mean… real friends as opposed to fair weather friends or people you were friends with simply because of convenience and proximity. The overwhelming majority of people kept in contact with only through fb (or only online in general) fall into the latter category. So I guess it’s just that I personally don’t see the point in dragging people forward with you who really make no difference to your actual life.</p>

<p>But I know some people are all about having a lot of friends who come and go and not so much about having deep connections with people. I guess for those types of people fb would make more sense because it actually is more a reflection of their real life.</p>