Is it weird to not have a social media presence

[andy06shake]

Too late

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/yp2gHWdi0.../giphy.gif]

Too far, too soon. You saw the whole of the moon. 

Soz just popped into my melon. 

[Maxmars]

I'm catching up all around...

I know it's late, and everyone is scattering...

But in my opinions...  the concept and framing of "social media" was engineered and developed specifically as a "model for control and monitoring."  This was by design.

As with quite a number of these "social" developments... accompanies by a narrative... it is still often overlooked that these agencies (I won't call them businesses, because there success has everything to do with government sponsorship and collusion of banks) were caught red-handed in 'experiments and research' regarding the specific ways they can affect users emotionally and how to track them perpetually.

Everyone scoffed at the irony... these 'bastions of free speech' would have fit in well in certain historical regimes.
And alarmingly,  in ours as well... (COVID anyone?)

They have demonstrated clearly... for all to see that they are NOT our friends... and most frequently... they are the source and well-spring of disinformation... and outright lies... empowered by 'undisclosed' sources.

All while demanding the "natural" right to curtail who says what and when... to "define" what is and isn't misinformation... as they spew it daily... in baser, more manipulative ways.... (the "mostly peaceful" destruction proclamation was amazingly dystopian.)

Social media is a natural communication venue because people are naturally "social."

It is possible to have a nominal social life... or even exceptional one... without a private communications medium in which to "participate socially."

I make no excuses, nor apologies....

COMMERCIAL interests cannot be simply believed when they define ANYTHING. "AI," "Social media", "vaccine," "Existential threats," "Social security," "Health care"... you name it - they've mangled the definition for commerce to exploit... and our government appears to cheer and 'help' every time.

When they say social media they mean "$ for clicks" paradigm world... where "viral" is exploitable money... and bot's 'create' trends to custom order, and literally thousands of people exist to simply "change the metrics" everywhere they are assigned.  Social media to them is the 'battleground' upon which they have the advantage over the ignorant.

When some around here use the term, the meaning can range from the cash cow industry... to a place where people can gather and exchange ideas...

The governments of the world have allowed the bank God to demand we all must exist in the 'internet world" to participate in their 'economic governing'... if you don't play... they don't pay.

So the "social media" thing is just another adjunct place they ultimately control... and suck data out of the system to "use".... give to 'special' friends to exploit....  (Used to be in the job of policing that slimy type of shit...   ) now they use it as a secret currency...  don't worry... they already blew the game (as they usually do) there's no notional 'winning' for them...

As for the presence one has on social media... I used to think that in many cases, people's "personas" online could be very misleading... a person can either be genuine... or 'attempt to be free to 'LARP' or 'experiment,' and in some cases 'fantasize' who they might be... in the safety of a 'no-direct-contact' kind of anonymity.

Facebook and it's many transnational clones... they are all the same tool... 'feeding' you the 'news' some 'algorithmic calculation' supposedly 'decides' you 'will like.'  But few noted exactly how they 'valued' and 'monetized' your input... and proceed to use that data to "whisper" back.

It's all very 'serving the interface' gestalt stuff...

If you feel empty without the place and acquaintances of social media... you're normal.
If you discover a new peace descending upon you in it's absence... you are normal.
If you feel kind of 'empty' and 'loneliness' around the absence... you are normal.

It's not really about the medium... it's the social.
Sadly for the no-contact architects in training... there is always real life...
interestingly, I've heard these folks complain... how "it's just not fair..."

Our focus defines our reality and what value we can derive from it.
Sharing a space or time with others... that's social...

[Knows]

It's stupid to post your identity on line with all the fraud going on. The less people know about you the less they can attack you.
If you're in a band or something and you want to post about where you are playing next. That would be one of the few reasons.  I can think of that would be worth it.  
A large percentage of your co workers, human resources etc will not find your politics to they're liking.  
Anything important you put on a separate email that the general public will never know even the address of. Any email or important site should have a security key on them for 2 factor.

[argentus]

I would offer to all of you that while DI is not a "social" media site, that it also fills that bill for many of us.   Who hasn't made friends here?   Who doesn't like the posts of those who are in the same confirmation bias as them?  

I think ATS was, and DI is, in many ways, a social media site.   I mean,what's the difference?   Reddit? Facebook? X?  What's the diff?   I don't care what you call it.   I call it a place for my friends to congregate and discuss and sometimes argue with each other. 

Selah.

[quintessentone]

So is being a private person and not posting on a social media site using your real identity considered 'odd' or 'weird'? I don't think so, but I am elderly and don't feel the need to share with strangers. I do, however, share much with my family and friends, privately.

What if posting what I ate for lunch for all to see doesn't do it for me? Or sending hugs for all to see which I can do privately to those in my love orbit via my phone texting, again privately.

Is it considered 'odd' that anonymous strangers would congregate on discussion forums for the purpose of having discussions while still remaining private? I think not because people in your orbit can't be everything to you as they are living their own life and pursuing their own interests. People in my orbit are busy and can't spend hours with me discussing UAPs.

I can say I mostly do not have a social media of my true self or presence or I don't put my true self out there to strangers because I don't need strangers to validate my life in any way.

[loam]

This won't surprise many, but the HR industry considers an absence of socials as a red flag and won't hire you.

But there is a cheat code in this if you think about it.

[quintessentone]

This won't surprise many, but the HR industry considers an absence of socials as a red flag and won't hire you.

But there is a cheat code in this if you think about it.

Isn't the Linkedin site enough for HR to get a handle on a potential hire? I mean this is the site where, in a professional sense, a person can have colleagues as followers, right? I suspended my account so this is just from memory. I could be wrong.

They are hiring a professional for a job, not a potential friend. There are behavioural tests they can apply during the interview process to dispel any concerns, so this is not a legit excuse for them. It's more like an invasion of privacy to me.

[loam]

Isn't the Linkedin site enough for HR to get a handle on a potential hire? I mean this is the site where, in a professional sense, a person can have colleagues as followers, right? I suspended my account so this is just from memory. I could be wrong.

They are hiring a professional for a job, not a potential friend. There are behavioural tests they can apply during the interview process to dispel any concerns, so this is not a legit excuse for them. It's more like an invasion of privacy to me.

Welcome to the world of overreach.

Linkedin is mostly reviewed to just verify connections. But the real socials are the litmus test. No Instagram? Too old. No Facebook? Not good with teams. No Twitter? Hiding something. 

It's appalling.

[Hypntick]

Welcome to the world of overreach.

Linkedin is mostly reviewed to just verify connections. But the real socials are the litmus test. No Instagram? Too old. No Facebook? Not good with teams. No Twitter? Hiding something. 

It's appalling.

I've never run into this in my professional career, so I can't confirm or deny. 

I had Facebook about a decade ago, got rid of it, and felt much better. I have an X account that I've used exactly once, when the PS5 launched, and it was hard to come by. There was a person you could follow who would tell you who had them in stock. The only real social media I have is LinkedIn, as it's the only one relevant to my career, and I honestly don't engage with it or post on it at all; I just update my job info accordingly. I find having social media weird. Who wants the world to know what you had for lunch or where your kids go to school?

[Maxmars]

So is being a private person and not posting on a social media site using your real identity considered 'odd' or 'weird'? I don't think so, but I am elderly and don't feel the need to share with strangers. I do, however, share much with my family and friends, privately.

What if posting what I ate for lunch for all to see doesn't do it for me? Or sending hugs for all to see which I can do privately to those in my love orbit via my phone texting, again privately.

Is it considered 'odd' that anonymous strangers would congregate on discussion forums for the purpose of having discussions while still remaining private? I think not because people in your orbit can't be everything to you as they are living their own life and pursuing their own interests. People in my orbit are busy and can't spend hours with me discussing UAPs.

I can say I mostly do not have a social media of my true self or presence or I don't put my true self out there to strangers because I don't need strangers to validate my life in any way.

I think many people don't just plop their life and opinions online the way we would when gathered with people in person.  

In fact, when looked at from the starkly mocking position of "dots on a screen" one can be almost certain that among the folks you come across are people "pretending" to be the way they 'could' be except real life won't let them be that way...

But this is I think largely because we people never had such a 'social' environment to explore before this...
"virtual" interaction was never before possible.

But we also have an imperative to "be" with, among, or simply along side other people...

Presumably the same reserve you hold onto has to do with not embarrassment, but honor.

My late wife always seemed resistant to my 'expressive' ways online.  But she knows that I am, if nothing else, careful, just not enough for her. 

I rarely offer up information that people can abuse... even if they think they can... (kinda fun, sometimes.)

Long ago, I learned that people who live in 'reserved image' mode often damage their own freedoms by 'reserving' the things that make them precisely who they are.

There will always be an element of trust in speaking to one another, it is an unavoidable...
Everyone is sharing the risk... such as it can be in a virtual world.

I speak freely, because I find the risk a matter of perception only.  Thus, it is strictly "imagined."

We are an imaginative lot.

I will miss that very much...

The wherein and how of it's perpetuity are beyond my imaginings...

But I will always have a little faith...
... it's a side effect.