I can't decide if this is good or bad. I don't participate in a lot of FB groups, but I do a lot of politely keeping my mouth shut in other forms of online communication. I think I would feel like I was being put on the spot to say something, particularly in a small group.
A lot of times, I'm not going to lie and agree with that thing someone said, but I also don't want to invest the energy into arguing it with them, either... especially when it's someone who's clearly just looking for accolades and doesn't seem open to criticism.
If the other person knows you saw their message, then there's the potential for them to perceive your lack of response as rude or a show of obvious disagreement.
In huge groups, it wouldn't be an issue, but in smaller, more intimate communities, it could get awkward.
I think the social issues will work themselves out pretty quickly once people get used to it. When instant messaging was new, the same discomfort existed.
As a student, my classmates and I use Facebook groups to organize activities. If, for example, the stage manager announces via Facebook that there will be rehearsal at a specific time, or that you should bring $5 for the director's gift, it'd be pretty stupid for all 35 cast members to reply "k" and nobody does this. But the message needs to reach all of them, and the SM has no idea who's been informed, so instead he gives himself carpel-tunnel texting everyone individually (because there is a social expectation that you acknowledge texts.)
A stage manager is in serious trouble if half the cast didn't know to show up, so he'll do it the hard way if he has to. But for large, informal social groups, people who don't use Facebook as actively simply fall through the cracks. I'm part of a roughly 30-member group that gets together to watch hilariously awful movies. We organize on Facebook, and people who don't happen to see our posts get left behind and forget about it. If the host of a movie night could easily see who already knows about it, he can contact the others by phone or in person, increasing engagement with the group while respecting those who silently declined.
Being able to see who you've already reached makes Facebook a pretty massive convenience in cases where it previously had no advantage, increasing engagement with both Facebook itself and the real-world entities represented by Facebook groups. I'd call it a win-win.
>If the other person knows you saw their message, then there's the potential for them to perceive your lack of response as rude or a show of obvious disagreement.
This goes both ways. Yes, it does eliminate ambiguity - you saw the message and chose not to respond; there wasn't a technical glitch. But where the person you're talking to would previously have escalated to a more invasive form of communication like a phone call, he now knows there's nothing wrong with Facebook; you're just not interested.
Then I'd say fuck events. Stop trying to change my behavior by holding me responsible by being a creepy web application I'm forced to use due to network effects.
You have a choice not to use facebook, I suppose. I can't see a single complaint against this system that doesn't end in bullshitting someone else (i.e. deception). Someone sends you a message, you read it, don't act on it. Now the other person can see you didn't act and ask WTF.
It'll cause some friction, sure. People will get over it.
I certainly do have a choice not to use it... but then again, not really (I even said people are forced to stay in it due to network effects).
Theoretically speaking, maybe I love Google+ but none of the people I want to keep in touch with use it, and thus the lock-in. I get what you're saying. And I really only use Facebook for two things - keeping in touch with family and friends that do not live near me, and posting Anti-Facebook articles to my News Feed.
you're kinda authoritarian aren't ya?
basically, if I got it right, you think that if anyone uses their freedom as an individual to act in any way you and the collective consciousness you follow disapproves then it's ok to limit that person rights
and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework(like, facebook forcing this behaviour down everyones throat) because if everyone would just think like you do, everything would be better?
Well I don't agree and I'll never do and I'll also stand up against, otherwise it may well happen!
No, you don't have it right. First of all, I don't see how "rights" ever enter into it. How is it a right, in any sense of the word, to have hidden when you've read someone else's message? That's what this is about.
>and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework
Just.. no. I never said that, or hinted at it. Stop reading motivations into my beliefs that do not exist.
well I was just trying to make the point on the implications some forms of viewing things and doors they leave open
but I guess this is also aching to political/ideological views, as I am very libertarian... Anyway, this argument has lost its purpose, better let it die, be good!
Comments
I can't decide if this is good or bad. I don't participate in a lot of FB groups, but I do a lot of politely keeping my mouth shut in other forms of online communication. I think I would feel like I was being put on the spot to say something, particularly in a small group.
A lot of times, I'm not going to lie and agree with that thing someone said, but I also don't want to invest the energy into arguing it with them, either... especially when it's someone who's clearly just looking for accolades and doesn't seem open to criticism.
If the other person knows you saw their message, then there's the potential for them to perceive your lack of response as rude or a show of obvious disagreement.
In huge groups, it wouldn't be an issue, but in smaller, more intimate communities, it could get awkward.
I think the social issues will work themselves out pretty quickly once people get used to it. When instant messaging was new, the same discomfort existed.
I think there's a huge difference between private messages between two people, and allowing everyone in a group to monitor other's usage.
As a student, my classmates and I use Facebook groups to organize activities. If, for example, the stage manager announces via Facebook that there will be rehearsal at a specific time, or that you should bring $5 for the director's gift, it'd be pretty stupid for all 35 cast members to reply "k" and nobody does this. But the message needs to reach all of them, and the SM has no idea who's been informed, so instead he gives himself carpel-tunnel texting everyone individually (because there is a social expectation that you acknowledge texts.)
A stage manager is in serious trouble if half the cast didn't know to show up, so he'll do it the hard way if he has to. But for large, informal social groups, people who don't use Facebook as actively simply fall through the cracks. I'm part of a roughly 30-member group that gets together to watch hilariously awful movies. We organize on Facebook, and people who don't happen to see our posts get left behind and forget about it. If the host of a movie night could easily see who already knows about it, he can contact the others by phone or in person, increasing engagement with the group while respecting those who silently declined.
Being able to see who you've already reached makes Facebook a pretty massive convenience in cases where it previously had no advantage, increasing engagement with both Facebook itself and the real-world entities represented by Facebook groups. I'd call it a win-win.
>If the other person knows you saw their message, then there's the potential for them to perceive your lack of response as rude or a show of obvious disagreement.
This goes both ways. Yes, it does eliminate ambiguity - you saw the message and chose not to respond; there wasn't a technical glitch. But where the person you're talking to would previously have escalated to a more invasive form of communication like a phone call, he now knows there's nothing wrong with Facebook; you're just not interested.
I hope this doesn't spread to Events too... it'll be harder to flake out of stuff. Or maybe that's what they're going for?
Then I'd say fuck events. Stop trying to change my behavior by holding me responsible by being a creepy web application I'm forced to use due to network effects.
I still file this one under fuck Facebook.
>Stop trying to change my behavior by holding me responsible
In general, being responsible is a good thing...
having the choice is the fundamental thing for fucks sake, what world do you live in? sheep
To be responsible or not? Forgive me for not thinking you're taking the moral high road, here, jerk.
I value freedom of choice over "doing the right thing" as freedom is not subjective while moral high roads are.
You have a choice not to use facebook, I suppose. I can't see a single complaint against this system that doesn't end in bullshitting someone else (i.e. deception). Someone sends you a message, you read it, don't act on it. Now the other person can see you didn't act and ask WTF.
It'll cause some friction, sure. People will get over it.
I certainly do have a choice not to use it... but then again, not really (I even said people are forced to stay in it due to network effects).
Theoretically speaking, maybe I love Google+ but none of the people I want to keep in touch with use it, and thus the lock-in. I get what you're saying. And I really only use Facebook for two things - keeping in touch with family and friends that do not live near me, and posting Anti-Facebook articles to my News Feed.
you're kinda authoritarian aren't ya? basically, if I got it right, you think that if anyone uses their freedom as an individual to act in any way you and the collective consciousness you follow disapproves then it's ok to limit that person rights
and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework(like, facebook forcing this behaviour down everyones throat) because if everyone would just think like you do, everything would be better?
Well I don't agree and I'll never do and I'll also stand up against, otherwise it may well happen!
this is a nice article that touches this topic: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127...
No, you don't have it right. First of all, I don't see how "rights" ever enter into it. How is it a right, in any sense of the word, to have hidden when you've read someone else's message? That's what this is about.
>and you also think it's ok to just embed your vision of the world as a framework
Just.. no. I never said that, or hinted at it. Stop reading motivations into my beliefs that do not exist.
well I was just trying to make the point on the implications some forms of viewing things and doors they leave open
but I guess this is also aching to political/ideological views, as I am very libertarian... Anyway, this argument has lost its purpose, better let it die, be good!