I deactivated Facebook over a year ago and in many respects don’t miss it. I’ve been really sick for most of that time but now I’m in the process of starting to go out again and Fb is a useful tool to connect, especially when you’re single and still trying to build a support network and new experiences.

I’m in two minds as to whether I reactivate it again or not. Some of that is for other reasons. But my question is: if you use social media, do you feel able to share things and to be authentic? If so: is that because you’ve either deleted or restricted mormon family & friends? (If I do that I can see other potential issues). Or is it because you’ve reached the point where you don’t care what they think or say about you?

I’d reached that point a few years ago but everything I’ve had to deal with consequently has me wanting to protect myself and keep everything private. Basically a lot of unpleasant criticism about me behind my back. But part of me still thinks defiantly, why the hell should I have to? I don’t see why I should have to hide.

This post is basically because I’m totally confused at the moment. Obviously this isn’t just about social media, but it is the only place where the mormons can have direct access to me and in that respect it’s been peaceful just knowing I’ve disappeared. So far, I’ve just gotten annoyed by this ridiculous dilemma and left it deactivated.

Thoughts/experiences welcome.

Third of Five Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trying to build a support network and
> new experiences.
===============================
Valid reason, social can be a useful tool in pursuit of that circumscribed objective

> do
> you feel able to share things and to be authentic?
===============================
Are most users attempting to be authentic?
Or conversely are many being purposefully **Inauthentic** to build a Potemkin Village of how their lives are so Awesome as a "I'm better than you" social hierarchy tool. (Their lives are not actually so awesome, which is why the devoted effort to make it seem otherwise)

> Or is it
> because you’ve reached the point where you
> don’t care what they think or say about you?
===============================
Useful capacity in any regard, as it affords one freedom from fear. Bulletproof confidence.

Dropped it when FB started with the (creepy) facial recognition technology, have not been back since, don't miss it.
Turns out in retrospect it was something of a chore.
You know, the proverbial thanksgiving dinner with crazy relations.

I use Facebook, but only have friends I know in real life. It comes in handy for keeping up with news from my college sorority and high school graduating class. But I rarely share anything meaningful.

That's how it feels to me. Latest is Linkedin. Having connections who's first credential is their Mormon mission is likely to lose me clients. I deleted my account.

I love Facebook. I use it to keep up with friends near and far, and to network for my job. It also helps me to keep up with hobby groups, my alma mater, etc. I would say, you have to control it and not have it control you. So don't accept any friend requests from people who you think would tear you down in private. If necessary, you can always make an excuse to them, i.e. you are not on FB very much, or you use it mainly for work purposes.

I use Facebook to post political things, and for business mostly, and to spy on people, lol!

is my daughter works in Alaska. It is my way of keeping up with her. I also message my friends and siblings that way. I post some personal things like pictures of my family, but not many. Most of my posts are about dogs. I don't talk religion on fb and I don't talk politics.

Thanks everyone, good advice and much appreciated. I talked with my daughter as well and I think I’m going to tighten my privacy and restrict mormon Fb friends from seeing anything I post and maybe even delete them if there are any further issues. (I hate doing that though, it’s so hurtful when someone deletes me). Truth is being offline was nice and peaceful but I’m feeling quite isolated now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2022 05:01PM by Third of Five.

I don't do FB much at all. I registered years ago but didn't include any content. A couple of people have connected with me when otherwise we had lost track of each other so that was nice. I find I don't have much of anything to say there that the world at large would be interested in plus I don't like the idea of just anybody being able to look me up.

I too have one contact I was thinking of deleting but I did wonder if they get a message saying they were deleted by me. From your comment,Third of Five, it sounds like that is indeed the case. IOW, I can't delete them discreetly, they will be informed?

I'm also leery about a comment I saw here the other day (I think it was here) that FB uses facial recognition. What does that mean actually? Doesn't sound like something I would want. (I don't have many pics on my FB page and only one on Twitter, a back view of me, lol).

I've always found that email and telephone and texting and in-person are the ways I keep in touch and that suits me fine.

Maybe it's a nudge to achieve more, do more, play more, think more, if you have to keep finding content to add to a FB page. Oh well, I guess I fail the FB age.

I was originally going to delete Facebook completely because I have a number of issues with it - the way our data is used and the algorithms shaping behaviour etc. (It was after watching a YouTube talk by Jaron Lanier, one of the contributors to ‘The social dilemma’ Netflix documentary). The facial recognition is another uncomfortable thing; however, I think this can be turned off in privacy settings. My understanding is it makes tagging easier, but that at least can be turned off. Still, it’s a lot of hassle.

Yes the friends thing..If you delete someone they aren’t notified but people tend to notice. I just reactivated my account and immediately realised someone was missing from my friends list because it’s someone I really like, so I was a bit hurt. The alternative is to put certain friends on a restricted list so that they see no more than anyone else on Facebook but without unfriending them. Unfortunately I’m linked to all mormon family and some old mormon friends. I added them when I was naively just going about my life and loving everybody. Now I have boundaries in real life; but it’s something that still hurts me a lot: I genuinely like and love them all but...well I don’t have to explain how mormons view us.

As Summer said, you have to make it work for you and I’m missing the positive aspects. I just really need it to be a safe space.

Third of Five Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The facial recognition is another
> uncomfortable thing; however, I think this can be
> turned off in privacy settings.

How does it work? I know what it is but what does it mean on FB?


> If you delete someone they
> aren’t notified

Oh, that's good. I'm going to try it. It's just that our paths have diverged - widely. And it's fine for me to cut loose from them as we don't contact one another any more anyway.


> As Summer said, you have to make it work for you
> and I’m missing the positive aspects. I just
> really need it to be a safe space.

This is the most important thing, for sure. Good luck with it. Self-protection is primary.

I’m not sure I can answer adequately. From what I can remember, someone posts a photo and Facebook then asks if you want to tag the people in the photo. Because of face recognition software it already knows who the people are, so it makes it quicker to tag them. Perhaps if you’re not paying much attention when posting a photo, Fb does it automatically (?)

I don’t like tagging anyway because I’ve been tagged by friends in unflattering photos and then when I untag myself it’s basically an acknowledgement of the fact that I looked like crap.

There are a few ways to handle people on FB:

"Friends" -- You can see all of their posts, and they can see all of your posts. You can direct message each other, if desired.

"Snooze for 30 Days" -- You temporarily block a friend's posts from your feed. They will likely never know that you did this. I do this when friends post endless memes all day long. You can still visit their page at any time.

"Unfollow" -- You remain friends. You can still post on their page and they can still post on yours. You can privately message one another. But you will no longer see their posts in your feed. I do this when I like people, but I can't stand their posts. Some people do it when they have too many people on their friends list, and they need to winnow down their feed. It happens. People never know directly that you did this, but they can sort of figure it out over a long period of time. I'm never offended when people do this, but sometimes a bit disappointed. OTOH, it's sometimes fun to see the people who actively choose to follow you and engage with your posts -- people whom you least expect can take quite an interest in you!

"Unfriend" -- You drop someone altogether from your friends list for a variety of reasons. They might or might not notice.

I don't use Facebook. I feel their history of privacy issue abuse, involvement in harmful and political issues, sanctioning misinformation of the worst kinds, and abusive algorithms which they lied about repeatedly are reasons enough to not trust them. I don't want to give them business. I don't want snoopy people looking for me.

In the words of Betty White, "It sounds like a huge waste of time."

I don't use any of my IRL info, don't post pics. Very few friends and I ignore any requests. I keep up on AU wildlife and craft stuff. It is what you make of it.

My thoughts, if I may:

The problems and dilemmas you sketch exist in a much broader and far more sinister context. Here’s that context outlined in the rosiest, most benign framing possible:

Here is Yuval Noah Harari being interviewed in his office at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

https://youtu.be/ltJTRnNLYqY

The text below answers a question asked at the 23:30 mark:

——-
“The government has enormous power to shape the opinions and desires of the population, and this power only increases today with the new technologies, of surveillance and mass surveillance and social media and so forth. So…some governments and corporations for the first time in history have the power to basically hack human beings.

“There was a lot of talk about hacking computers, hacking smart phones, hacking bank accounts; but the big story of our era is the ability to hack human beings, and by this I mean, that if you have enough data and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves, and then you can manipulate them in ways which were previously impossible; and in such a situation the old democratic system stop functioning. We need to reinvent democracy for this new era in which humans are now hackable animals.

You know, the whole idea that humans have…this soul or spirit and they have free will and nobody knows what’s happening inside me so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will: that’s over.”

“No matter what you think ultimately is the truth of the universe, you have to realize that practically today we have the technology to hack human beings on a massive scale, and this means we need to reinvent democracy, we need to reinvent the market. Again, the whole idea of the customer is always right, we just do whatever the customers want; yes, but you can now hack the customers, you can manipulate the customers to want what you tell them to want. So this whole idea that corporations just serve the needs of the customers, this is over. You can’t hide behind this explanation anymore.”
——-


The real problem for us, is that the very people who say that we need to reinvent democracy and that we need to reinvent the market-place, to meet this new reality head-on, are also the very same people who create this new reality and who have power over the technology. THE REINVENTION THEY CALL FOR SERVES THEM, NOT US.

Two things, at least, we can do: 1) understand that there is no such thing as on-line privacy 2) zealously hang-on to that old fashioned thing called the Bill of Rights, and agitate for more rights, not less (more bodily autonomy, more free speech, more freedom to assemble, more freedom of conscience, etc).

“There was a lot of talk about hacking computers, hacking smart phones, hacking bank accounts; but the big story of our era is the ability to hack human beings, and by this I mean, that if you have enough data and you have enough computing power, you can understand people better than they understand themselves, and then you can manipulate them in ways which were previously impossible; and in such a situation the old democratic system stop functioning. We need to reinvent democracy for this new era in which humans are now hackable animals.

COMMENT: Yes, we need to 'reinvent democracy' by placing appropriate social and corporate restrictions on surveillance and media 'hacking' for ideological and commercial purposes. But we also need to do better about individual responsibility. As individuals, we have to learn to recognize this environment for what it is, how it currently applies to each of us individually, and guard against it. At the end of the day, we (as individuals) are victims through voluntary participation.
_____________________________________________

"You know, the whole idea that humans have…this soul or spirit and they have free will and nobody knows what’s happening inside me so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will: that’s over.”

COMMENT: Well, no one hacks minds or thoughts directly. It is not like our brains are hooked up to some machine that bypasses our free will, steals our inner thoughts, and tells us what to think and do next. So, the 'soul' is in tack, along with free will. And that is our main defense. We can think, we can reason, we can understand what is happening, and we can act accordingly. We are not slaves to media and corporate 'hackers.' Again, if we are victims, we are willing victims! (That is how we all, under extreme 'corporate' and 'media' pressure, geared towards mind control, found our way out of Mormonism.)
__________________________________________

"The real problem for us, is that the very people who say that we need to reinvent democracy and that we need to reinvent the market-place, to meet this new reality head-on, are also the very same people who create this new reality and who have power over the technology. THE REINVENTION THEY CALL FOR SERVES THEM, NOT US."

COMMENT: To a point that is true. But so far, the policies proposed to be implemented to address this problem are reasonably neutral. There are hopefully objective social policies that do not necessarily serve the interest of those proposing them. In other words, it is not necessarily true that a change implementing 'hacking' restrictions, as motivated by the Left, also serves leftist, progressive ideology generally.
___________________________________________

"Two things, at least, we can do: 1) understand that there is no such thing as on-line privacy 2) zealously hang-on to that old fashioned thing called the Bill of Rights, and agitate for more rights, not less (more bodily autonomy, more free speech, more freedom to assemble, more freedom of conscience, etc)."

COMMENT: This strikes me as a bit idealistic. 'Rights talk' always involves trade-offs, and such trade-offs always involve competing values which are generally acknowledge as being important.

GREAT POST.

Thanks.