"I went on a weekend trip and didn't invite friend A, so I hope friend B keeps it a secret and doesn't tell anyone I was there" is the kind of social dynamic that people grow out of in high school. If you are having trouble with it as an adult then it isn't really Instagram's fault. People talk to each other and share stuff, and sometimes they talk about you, both online and offline. Just live your life without being so bothered about offending other people. They are adults as well, and care about it less than you think.
alwa · 2h ago
There’s value in grace. For all sorts of reasons you might be right to do things that make other people feel bad. That’s no reason to rub their nose in it.
What’s the virtue in offending people when you could instead be kind?
I know one woman who is having a baby shower, and I know another woman who recently dealt with the loss of her child. It’s not “secrecy” to celebrate the baby shower and avoid bringing it up with the recently bereaved, it’s respect and good taste.
I feel like we used to call it discretion…
dghlsakjg · 9m ago
As someone whose wife has lost two pregnancies recently, please don’t assume this kind of thing.
I don’t want to be locked out of the joys of celebrating with friends due to misguided attempts to protect me. If going to a baby shower is going to be a problem, let me decide that.
I’m an adult, and I can use my words to say no for myself. For the record, our own experience hasn’t kept us from enjoying time with pregnant couples, children or babies.
On the other hand, if I found out that my friends were excluding me or my wife from social events, I would actually be upset at having my agency removed.
If the person suffering the loss has asked to not be included, that is different.
paxys · 5m ago
If a random guest came to me on my wedding day and said "I don't want you to post any photos of this event online because one of my friends just lost their spouse and I don't want them to see me celebrating a wedding at this time", my response would (rightly) be - I'm sorry for their loss but that isn't going to stop me from celebrating my day in whatever way I see fit. Yes I obviously wouldn't go out of my way to call and tell this person about how much fun I had, but people understand that life goes on, and all of social media doesn't have to be sanitized to meet individual people's preferences.
rootnod3 · 1h ago
The people being offended could just act like an adult.
If you want to go out with friend A but don't want friend B to see it for whatever reason (maybe B has a feud with A), then that is a thing between B and A, but not you.
I think the whole point of the OP comment is to just go with it. If you don't flauntingly advertise it, it is not your fault.
But in a very social media centric world, even if you are just a participant in a picture can feel like "flaunting it" to 3rd parties.
standardUser · 1h ago
> I feel like we used to call it discretion…
That's a stretch, considering previous generations forbid people from discussing all manner of life issues and events out of "discretion", which in my estimation has been a key factor in perpetuating shame and all of the horrifying things that come from societal shame.
colechristensen · 18m ago
Secrecy isn't grace or discretion when it comes to vacations or baby showers.
Not bringing up a sensitive topic when interacting with someone is discretion. Hiding a major life event because it might trigger one person is silly.
There's a phase in a big chunk of people's lives where the only thing on their social media is about having a baby. If you're traumatized by that it's up to you, not everyone else, to keep it away from yourself (e.g. stay off social media or start a new profile and only follow hyperpop jazz trombone and COBOL enthusiasts... or whatever).
Not wanting to share your life on social media is one thing, picking and choosing to keep things secret from person A or B because of some drama or another is childish.
mjevans · 2h ago
Less 'keep it secret' and more 'don't make a big public deal out of private memories'.
bobthepanda · 1h ago
is a group trip a private memory?
citizenpaul · 46m ago
Depends. Are you a spoilt rotten rich kid? Thats the only place I've seen this dynamic play out.
kcmastrpc · 2h ago
I've tried to incorporate the notion that it's none of my business what other people think of me. I don't always get it right, but having that attitude has helped tremendously on reducing my cortisol levels.
ty6853 · 1h ago
This is a huge relief, but it does come at a cost. What other people think of you is one of the largest inputs to access to jobs, sexual partners, and likelihood you'll be referred or witnessed against for prosecution for some inane zoning/HOA ordinance or petty crime (whether you did it or not) because you're not on someone's good side, etc etc. So the high cortisol levels may be warranted from the Darwinist perspective.
Having a good thing happen or preventing bad things from happening sadly show up as high stakes butterfly effects of the perverted social ranking and opinion games.
CrimsonCape · 36m ago
If you look at this from the perspective of the judicial system, a huge part of the judicial process exists to compel you to be physically present and in-person at a court room.
On the other hand, social media is really the pinnacle of "the court of public opinion"; people feel more comfortable seeing what photos and social groups you appear in as evidence of "who you are". He/she appears in <insert well established group here> and therefore must be <well-established person>.
hammock · 2h ago
Not really. It hurts people's feelings to find out they weren't invited to something they thought they should have been. Protecting feelings and smoothing out awkward social dynamics are the the category of "very adult."
As a more general example, you wouldn't talk about a happy hour you were going to after work with people who weren't invited/aren't invited/you wouldn't invite. I believe every sitcom on the planet has at least one episode with this lesson in it.
w29UiIm2Xz · 1h ago
It's both things. Being an adult means not being overly bothered if you weren't invited, and it's also very adult to prevent the situation where the uninvited friend doesn't find out, out of concern for their feelings. Both are simply approaching it from different ends.
soulofmischief · 1h ago
I'm in my thirties now, and I have been on my own since I was homeless at sixteen. One thing I have learned about being an adult is it means that you have no obligation to seriously consider any other person's idea of what being an adult means.
CrimsonCape · 54m ago
I agree. The above poster is using an example for "adult" which seems ridiculously juvenile. If I spent one minute of my life figuring out how to "smooth-over" disgruntled happy-hour-non-invitees I would be inclined to beat my head against a wall on account of the absurdity.
wouterjanl · 2h ago
Good points! Totally agree that people care less than you think, and it’s very healthy to live your life without thinking you have to please everyone all the time. The nuance I tried to make, but I was perhaps not really clear, is that when people talk with each other, people have the chance to make sure a message comes across so that it does not offend a person. That chance for nuance is lost when people post on social media. Not that people do it deliberately, it’s just that social media is designed to be focused on the poster rather than on how that message makes certain people in the audience feel. And I do believe people are bothered not to offend someone, and that they are less likely to do so when you actually talk.
aaroninsf · 2h ago
It's absolutely the fault of the mechanics and submission of our society to surveillance capitalism,
one which has been intentionally cultivated, exploited, and capitalized, by Meta,
so yes, it is Instagram's fault. They are the primary party—though I do not excuse those complicit with surveillance capitalism, meaning every person who continues despite unending evidence for how sociopathic and destructive the company, its management, and its impact is, to use their products. Which use however is also traceable in significant part back to Meta, via the ugly mechanics of exploitative and amoral engagement-engineering and their exploitation of monopoly.
This is a front upon which they might and should be confronted... a class action on behalf of those have not consented to participate in surviellance would be a lovely thing.
Under the current political shitshow, also in measurable part the "fault" of Meta, however, we can expect no such thing.
aaroninsf · 31m ago
Lol, Meta apologists everywhere.
Rue the consequences of making working for Meta socially and career viable at leisure. Maybe in an El Salvador prison.
mindslight · 18m ago
You're being downvoted for making the point a bit obtusely, but the general point is spot on. This culture of broadcast sharing with some imagined singlular hivemind is an opinionated policy, and certainly not the only way of interacting with other people. Many people view different groups of friends as disparate communities and don't appreciate the social context collapse of them mixing. And even if everyone is friends, more people coming to an event doesn't always make for a better time.
The one-community broadcast-everything model has been embraced and encouraged by these surveillance businesses who don't want you to think too hard why they are also privy to all of your communications, and also want to drive the maximum number of interactions for "engagement" metrics. Non-corporate social media, "indie" web, and group chats are much more natural organic patterns of communication.
zombitack · 1h ago
After being friends with public people, I got in the habit of asking people in pictures before I post, regardless of if they're on Instagram or not. And I NEVER post kid pictures. I find these rules should be obvious to most people. I'll even ask my wife first, who is always just about to post the same set of pictures I am. It's the decent thing to do.
timcobb · 2h ago
This reminded me of the time ~10 years ago I was at an event featuring Richard Stallman, and he started by say that no one was allowed to post photos of him on FB. This was to a room of hundreds of people, mostly hackers. I thought, "damn, if there's an uphill battle somewhere, this guy will find it!"
procaryote · 1h ago
You allowed to have boundaries even if there's a few assholes who won't respect them
delusional · 1h ago
Knowing Richard Stallman he didn't ask for you not to upload them to Facebook but rather "Disgracebook", "FaceBurgler" or something like that.
lostmsu · 1h ago
In US, if that was a private event, his request is legally binding.
malfist · 1h ago
Unless they signed NDAs to get into the room with him, it's not. You're welcome to share the legal code, or a court case that proves me wrong though.
paxys · 1h ago
Unless you agreed to the terms before buying your ticket, no, it isn't legally binding.
kube-system · 1h ago
RMS prefers his events to be open to the public
lvass · 1h ago
What if entering that room was free as in beer?
lostmsu · 1h ago
I may have been wrong in that RMS does not have that power, but the property owner does. Not sure if this is a universal rule or not.
bobismyuncle · 1h ago
How would this work in practice if it was litigated? Wouldn't you need proof that this was expressly communicated to the specific individual that violated and that they did so knowingly? Seems like it probably isn't enforceable...
lostmsu · 1h ago
In this case I think it might be, because if the event was recorded presumably so was the request to not share.
elAhmo · 2h ago
It is perfectly valid and fine thing to say to someone, as an adult, that you don't want to be a part of their stories on social media.
If they don't respect that, you need a new set of friends.
No comments yet
igor47 · 3h ago
i've thought the same thing about email. i run my own email server, so i'm one of a very few number of people whose email is opaque to gmail. on the other hand -- almost everyone i exchange email with uses gmail, so actually gmail has almost all my email anyway.
barbazoo · 2h ago
Interesting. I never thought about adjusting my message based on the email provider they use. Would be hard to do, someone could be using their own domain but the email goes through Gmail.
AndriyKunitsyn · 2h ago
Did you have any problems with Gmail not trusting your server and moving your letters to spam?
SoftTalker · 2h ago
Don't immediately start hosting your own email on a brand new domain especially if you're using a free or very low-cost VPS provider.
Pay a bit more for a better reputation provider. Use a domain you've owned for a while. Set up all SPF, DKIM, and DMARC properly.
Or just pay fastmail to do it for you.
chrisweekly · 1h ago
Strong rec to use Fastmail; it's a fantastic, reliable, inexpensive service w/ excellent performance and UX.
2Gkashmiri · 1h ago
I disagree. I followed luke smiths video on email hosting and adapted to miab and I was up and running.
Checked the IP for problems beforehand. Have had to request a different IP once.
delusional · 1h ago
I've been running a mail server for years. Never had any problem. I switched ip a year or two ago and didn't even warm up the new one. I do have DKIM and DMARC and that stuff though.
I'm sure you'll have some problems if you start serving newsletters right away, but as a personal mail server, you don't really need to do anything.
I even fucked up the config at one point for a week, and all the mail just patiently waited on the senders mail server for mine to be up again. I really love email.
2Gkashmiri · 3h ago
I bought into mailinabox like 3-4 years ago.
Zero issues since then. First time my emails got into spam but after unspamming, it worked.
Havent had issues. I use a cheap racknerd $12/year server so its way cheaper than proton or stuff and I have dozens of emails across family members.
netsharc · 2h ago
> Imagine a friend you were on a weekend trip with. This friend talks with another common friend. This common friend could have equally well been on that weekend trip because you like him or her but, due to circumstances, as is life, you did not invite him. You probably would feel uncomfortable with that first friend talking about that trip as if it was the most awesome trip ever, that everyone had non-stop fun and now everyone who was on that trip are best friends for life.
I feel like this is an issue one just has to grow up past. Walking on eggshells and deception so as not to hurt anyone's feelings is an annoying way to live. (I preach as a sinner). Related: https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/2025/apr/01/fringe-frie...
As to Zuck's machine having your information, yeah I can imagine if they bothered, they could see that there's always a person or two in all the pictures that aren't associated with any of the faces of the accounts, it can also determine what the friend groups of this person are. Probably even determine their wealth by their clothes, accessories, vacation locations, house ("Oh 5 users are gathered in a particular geolocation that is none of their houses [which we know about because 95% of the time a phone returns to a particular geolocation at night], and we can see from the photos that that 'unregistered user' is with them", that must be this user's house. Oh he lives in this neighborhood, that has a median income of EUR xyz. A reverse lookup of addresses we have because online shops upload their customer data to our system determines that one of the people living in that address is named Wouter Janleys, and from the shopping data he likes, amongst other things, mid-range to expensive wines.".
I wonder if they can even advertise to you through your friends, hah, that'd be a feature improvement for a Facebook project manager. Start showing your friends wine ads a few weeks before your birthday (as well as "It's Wouter's birthday in a few weeks" and "Remember this photo?" which is a photo of the group with glasses of wine)...
mhitza · 1h ago
> I wonder if they can even advertise to you through your friends, hah,
A think this is partly why a lot of this activity moved into private group chats, where it's more naturally segregated by social circles. Most people around me are pretty active on social media but vast majority of that activity is not in the public profile.
mjevans · 2h ago
Should it be allowed / legal to 'tag' people that are not part of a service?
I might agree that 'celebrities' and leaders of larger organizations are 'public figures' and thus if there's a reasonable public interest it should be allowed to tag them, probably with a publishing delay for security.
However individuals? Random citizens who aren't part of a platform and cannot manage their data? IMO the default should be deny data collection and do not profile.
simiones · 2h ago
I don't think the problem raised in the article is limited to tagging. Friend A can recognize me in a picture from friend B regardless of whether I'm tagged there or not.
Then again, this is a pretty obscure problem, or more of a "problem".
bobismyuncle · 1h ago
Tagging will be redundant pretty soon with facial recognition...
mrweasel · 2h ago
What happens if you don't have an Instagram account, write to them and demand that they take down images of you, or provide you with all the images you appear in? Some level of this seems to be provided for by the GDPR and the EUs right to be forgotten.
ruined · 2h ago
meta and its social networks have been a disaster for the human race
alex1138 · 41m ago
They needed to have proper defaults and they needed to let their social network grow organically and they needed to have an actual sane, proper, feed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719
There's a reason everyone is on Facebook (one reason is that everyone is on Facebook): Myspace legitimately shot themselves in the foot (I guess Friendster too by lack of proper site performance, even though it was cleaner) by having 'messy' pages. There's real value in being able to find the people you want/need to find by their real names (except, Google, maybe don't you know, hijack people's Youtube accounts in order so that they use Google+)
But then Facebook introduces shifting privacy settings, tagging without permission, not giving people control over how information is displayed generally
I understand it's about beating the competition and about growing and 'connecting the world' but some companies' DNA is set a certain way from the beginning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
chelmzy · 2h ago
It's radicalizing as a twenty something who hasn't had social media in over a decade. Almost everything revolves around it or some friend Discord server. I hate it.
johnklos · 2h ago
People who know me know that even though I'm very public (my handle and my email address are my name, for instance), I care about privacy, and therefore it's unacceptable to post abount me on corporate social media without asking permission, just as they also know to not name or tag me.
People who post without asking don't know me well enough to name or tag me, so I don't care.
If someone posted and named / tagged me without asking, I'd have a serious conversation with them about it.
We need to stop acting like others' ignorance gives them an excuse to do things we don't want. "But everyone does it" is bull, and we're doing people a disservice when we let things slide because of that.
imaginationra · 1h ago
A nothing post from a blog with a single post.
Its marketing and its boring.
steveBK123 · 2h ago
One of my "its probably time to quit IG" moments prior to quitting 3 years involved being on a condo board.
A resident sent a petition asking for a variance from the bylaws, and part of the pitch was "well I saw XYZ on your IG so I thought you'd approve of this".
Uhh thanks, rejected.. blocked on IG, quit IG, bye.
cess11 · 44m ago
I expect people to ask me before they publish documentation of where I've been and what I did on services like Instagram, and I usually decline the offer. Is this considered unreasonable elsewhere?
mvdtnz · 1h ago
He wants to hang out with friends, but he wants his friends to never speak of it with their other friends?
firefoxd · 2h ago
The social etiquette argument has been thrown away with the bath water. You are now the weirdo with something to hide when you are not on Instagram or Tiktok.
The term I like is Social Cooling, the subtle way in which people change their behavior because they are both present in person and online. Have you ever heard some use the term "unalive" in person? It's as if they are protecting themselves from an algorithm, as if the conversation will be posted online.
alwa · 2h ago
Have you had that experience, of being taken as a weirdo? We may move in very different circles, but when I ask to be left out of social media posts I’m always met with respect and understanding, at least to my face.
If anything, in recent years, I’m met with something closer to the respect people afford recovering addicts turning down drinks: “oh man, I wish I were off of it too, good for you.”
No comments yet
jjulius · 2h ago
>You are now the weirdo with something to hide when you are not on Instagram or Tiktok.
You might call me a "weirdo", but this has absolutely not been my experience whatsoever. Friends, family and coworkers don't really give a shit that I don't participate in social media, and I haven't been treated any differently for it.
Edit: And hell, generally, what's life without a bit of weird? The homogeneity of everyone doing the same thing together all the time sounds boring as hell. Here's to the weirdos!
mvdtnz · 1h ago
It just be a regional thing. I don't know a single person who uses Instagram.
standardUser · 52m ago
Not even musicians, artists and the like? I have a lot of friends who use Instagram at least partly for their professional lives and hobbies.
soupfordummies · 2h ago
Be the change you wanna see...
A lot of people thought non-drinkers were kinda weird a decade or so ago when drinking wine on morning TV was popular. Now half of the beer aisle is N/A offerings.
kube-system · 1h ago
> Have you ever heard some use the term "unalive" in person? It's as if they are protecting themselves from an algorithm, as if the conversation will be posted online.
Nobody is being socially pressured to avoid the word "dead/died/killed" in person, that's just an illustration of slang perpetuating.
barbazoo · 2h ago
> You are now the weirdo with something to hide when you are not on Instagram or Tiktok.
Definitely _not_ a universal feeling.
standardUser · 53m ago
No one thinks it's weird. You'll likely have a harder time making friends, flirting or networking for your career, but it's absolutely not weird to not use social media these days.
What’s the virtue in offending people when you could instead be kind?
I know one woman who is having a baby shower, and I know another woman who recently dealt with the loss of her child. It’s not “secrecy” to celebrate the baby shower and avoid bringing it up with the recently bereaved, it’s respect and good taste.
I feel like we used to call it discretion…
I don’t want to be locked out of the joys of celebrating with friends due to misguided attempts to protect me. If going to a baby shower is going to be a problem, let me decide that.
I’m an adult, and I can use my words to say no for myself. For the record, our own experience hasn’t kept us from enjoying time with pregnant couples, children or babies.
On the other hand, if I found out that my friends were excluding me or my wife from social events, I would actually be upset at having my agency removed.
If the person suffering the loss has asked to not be included, that is different.
If you want to go out with friend A but don't want friend B to see it for whatever reason (maybe B has a feud with A), then that is a thing between B and A, but not you.
I think the whole point of the OP comment is to just go with it. If you don't flauntingly advertise it, it is not your fault.
But in a very social media centric world, even if you are just a participant in a picture can feel like "flaunting it" to 3rd parties.
That's a stretch, considering previous generations forbid people from discussing all manner of life issues and events out of "discretion", which in my estimation has been a key factor in perpetuating shame and all of the horrifying things that come from societal shame.
Not bringing up a sensitive topic when interacting with someone is discretion. Hiding a major life event because it might trigger one person is silly.
There's a phase in a big chunk of people's lives where the only thing on their social media is about having a baby. If you're traumatized by that it's up to you, not everyone else, to keep it away from yourself (e.g. stay off social media or start a new profile and only follow hyperpop jazz trombone and COBOL enthusiasts... or whatever).
Not wanting to share your life on social media is one thing, picking and choosing to keep things secret from person A or B because of some drama or another is childish.
Having a good thing happen or preventing bad things from happening sadly show up as high stakes butterfly effects of the perverted social ranking and opinion games.
On the other hand, social media is really the pinnacle of "the court of public opinion"; people feel more comfortable seeing what photos and social groups you appear in as evidence of "who you are". He/she appears in <insert well established group here> and therefore must be <well-established person>.
As a more general example, you wouldn't talk about a happy hour you were going to after work with people who weren't invited/aren't invited/you wouldn't invite. I believe every sitcom on the planet has at least one episode with this lesson in it.
one which has been intentionally cultivated, exploited, and capitalized, by Meta,
so yes, it is Instagram's fault. They are the primary party—though I do not excuse those complicit with surveillance capitalism, meaning every person who continues despite unending evidence for how sociopathic and destructive the company, its management, and its impact is, to use their products. Which use however is also traceable in significant part back to Meta, via the ugly mechanics of exploitative and amoral engagement-engineering and their exploitation of monopoly.
This is a front upon which they might and should be confronted... a class action on behalf of those have not consented to participate in surviellance would be a lovely thing.
Under the current political shitshow, also in measurable part the "fault" of Meta, however, we can expect no such thing.
Rue the consequences of making working for Meta socially and career viable at leisure. Maybe in an El Salvador prison.
The one-community broadcast-everything model has been embraced and encouraged by these surveillance businesses who don't want you to think too hard why they are also privy to all of your communications, and also want to drive the maximum number of interactions for "engagement" metrics. Non-corporate social media, "indie" web, and group chats are much more natural organic patterns of communication.
If they don't respect that, you need a new set of friends.
No comments yet
Pay a bit more for a better reputation provider. Use a domain you've owned for a while. Set up all SPF, DKIM, and DMARC properly.
Or just pay fastmail to do it for you.
I'm sure you'll have some problems if you start serving newsletters right away, but as a personal mail server, you don't really need to do anything.
I even fucked up the config at one point for a week, and all the mail just patiently waited on the senders mail server for mine to be up again. I really love email.
Zero issues since then. First time my emails got into spam but after unspamming, it worked.
Havent had issues. I use a cheap racknerd $12/year server so its way cheaper than proton or stuff and I have dozens of emails across family members.
I feel like this is an issue one just has to grow up past. Walking on eggshells and deception so as not to hurt anyone's feelings is an annoying way to live. (I preach as a sinner). Related: https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/2025/apr/01/fringe-frie...
As to Zuck's machine having your information, yeah I can imagine if they bothered, they could see that there's always a person or two in all the pictures that aren't associated with any of the faces of the accounts, it can also determine what the friend groups of this person are. Probably even determine their wealth by their clothes, accessories, vacation locations, house ("Oh 5 users are gathered in a particular geolocation that is none of their houses [which we know about because 95% of the time a phone returns to a particular geolocation at night], and we can see from the photos that that 'unregistered user' is with them", that must be this user's house. Oh he lives in this neighborhood, that has a median income of EUR xyz. A reverse lookup of addresses we have because online shops upload their customer data to our system determines that one of the people living in that address is named Wouter Janleys, and from the shopping data he likes, amongst other things, mid-range to expensive wines.".
I wonder if they can even advertise to you through your friends, hah, that'd be a feature improvement for a Facebook project manager. Start showing your friends wine ads a few weeks before your birthday (as well as "It's Wouter's birthday in a few weeks" and "Remember this photo?" which is a photo of the group with glasses of wine)...
Probably did so through shadow profiles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_profile
I might agree that 'celebrities' and leaders of larger organizations are 'public figures' and thus if there's a reasonable public interest it should be allowed to tag them, probably with a publishing delay for security.
However individuals? Random citizens who aren't part of a platform and cannot manage their data? IMO the default should be deny data collection and do not profile.
Then again, this is a pretty obscure problem, or more of a "problem".
There's a reason everyone is on Facebook (one reason is that everyone is on Facebook): Myspace legitimately shot themselves in the foot (I guess Friendster too by lack of proper site performance, even though it was cleaner) by having 'messy' pages. There's real value in being able to find the people you want/need to find by their real names (except, Google, maybe don't you know, hijack people's Youtube accounts in order so that they use Google+)
But then Facebook introduces shifting privacy settings, tagging without permission, not giving people control over how information is displayed generally
I understand it's about beating the competition and about growing and 'connecting the world' but some companies' DNA is set a certain way from the beginning https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692122
People who post without asking don't know me well enough to name or tag me, so I don't care.
If someone posted and named / tagged me without asking, I'd have a serious conversation with them about it.
We need to stop acting like others' ignorance gives them an excuse to do things we don't want. "But everyone does it" is bull, and we're doing people a disservice when we let things slide because of that.
Its marketing and its boring.
A resident sent a petition asking for a variance from the bylaws, and part of the pitch was "well I saw XYZ on your IG so I thought you'd approve of this".
Uhh thanks, rejected.. blocked on IG, quit IG, bye.
The term I like is Social Cooling, the subtle way in which people change their behavior because they are both present in person and online. Have you ever heard some use the term "unalive" in person? It's as if they are protecting themselves from an algorithm, as if the conversation will be posted online.
If anything, in recent years, I’m met with something closer to the respect people afford recovering addicts turning down drinks: “oh man, I wish I were off of it too, good for you.”
No comments yet
You might call me a "weirdo", but this has absolutely not been my experience whatsoever. Friends, family and coworkers don't really give a shit that I don't participate in social media, and I haven't been treated any differently for it.
Edit: And hell, generally, what's life without a bit of weird? The homogeneity of everyone doing the same thing together all the time sounds boring as hell. Here's to the weirdos!
A lot of people thought non-drinkers were kinda weird a decade or so ago when drinking wine on morning TV was popular. Now half of the beer aisle is N/A offerings.
Nobody is being socially pressured to avoid the word "dead/died/killed" in person, that's just an illustration of slang perpetuating.
Definitely _not_ a universal feeling.