You say "friendships" but I don't believe that's the exact word.

Real friendships will continue to survive and thrive, as they did before Facebook, as long as both parties keep trying. If a "friend" of mine won't invite me to a party because I don't have Facebook, he's not really my friend. It's as simple as that for me.

Of course we probably differ on what we define as friendship, but I believe you'd agree that having a fake number of Facebook "friends" is not going to change who your real friends are.

Facebook is one of many ways to talk to people (even tho I don't consider clicking "like" on something is in any way meaningful) but it is not the only one. If people force you to communicate through one mean they are, pardon my french, inconsiderate jerks.

My main point is that the lack of Facebook affects the process by which these real friendships form. In a context where Facebook is used by most of your peers, the lack of it creates an additional barrier to socialization that has subtle negative effects which compound over time. The result is that you can miss out on forming real friendships because the cementing period is stunted by the reduced amount of unplanned interactions. Of course, this is highly ironic when seeing that strong friendships are resilient to the absence of social media or the passage of time.

The concept may seem strange but it's actually no different than someone growing more distant from a group of friends because they habitually miss out on the weekly Quiz Night or something.

It's not so much that people force you to communicate by one means, but rather that the friction involved reduces the amount of interaction in an automatic way. As kinkrtyavimoodh pointed out, it's an organic process and not really a conscious choice by people to isolate others.

Makes sense. It's the pressure from society to conform to it's standards, no matter how bad they are.

Pisses me off when I go to a place that requires you to "check-in on facebook" to get wifi... Not much I can do about it except not use their wifi

> friendships are heavily based on repeated unplanned interactions

I think this hits the nail on the head. 'Unplanned' is the keyword here. If it's a party it's likely your friend will invite you, but it's also very likely that you will miss out on some banter in the comment section of a pic they uploaded on FB because you were not around. This is not something deliberate—it's casual, it's unplanned, it's organic, and you will not be included in it if you are not on the platform.

I think a lot of people here on HN are parts of bubbles (for lack of a better word) whether their real life social circles are not very active on FB either. If that's the case, you can pretty much leave FB without it affecting you too much. But if your friends are active on FB, and you are the only one who is not, well it's your choice and that's perfectly fine, but it definitely has an effect.

How many friends do you think a person would have if they refused to use a computer or telephone and required all communication to come by way of hand written letters or telegrams?

People would think that person is strange and likely not interact with them or bother to invite them to events.

Sadly, this is becoming partially the case with Facebook. I am not talking about existing friends, but making new friends, especially among young people where Facebook is the norm and they don't remember a time before the internet and cell phones.

I signed up just to reply to your post.

What you see as true is based on your unique perspective of the world. And I have to say that I am struck by your strange, possibly normal view.

Perhaps what you say is true. Maybe society has technologically evolved to the point where we ought to care about what you've fear-mongered.

But I must say, your fear-mongering might be a result of your personal fears, and therefore might not be applicable to most other people.

Your first question is a strawman and hurts the general point of this discussion. Why include telephone with computers? I wonder how many people on this planet actually refuse both computer and telephone. Plenty rely solely on telephone and written letters, and they have plenty of friends.

I agree that people would find someone who refuses both computers AND telephones strange. That's because it's extremely rare - so rare that I have to ask you for examples of people you know of who act this way. I wonder if you're not just making up fairytales to make your fear-mongering more impactful.

"Sadly, this is becoming partially the case with Facebook."

You're attempting to compare the oddity of refusing telephone to refusing Facebook. Let's get serious about this. How many people do you know who can suffice as evidence for your above claim? You state that this is becoming the case with Facebook. How do you know?

People don't need lots of friends. They don't need 100s of possibly useful people on a website they have to maintain and update in order to "fit in". Based on what I've learned from history, people who keep to themselves and avoid fame live happier lives.

Social media has created the false illusion that you need to stay in contact with everyone you meet on a daily basis. Otherwise, you might lose out on opportunities to increase your social capital. It's a trick, and Zuckerberg has you by the balls.

Get out while you still can. Live a great life with a handful of phone contacts.

He was hyperbolic but there most definitely is a ton of pressure to use Facebook and other forms of social media, especially if you are young. In some cases, people perceive the absence of a Facebook account as a red flag and even a sign of weirdness, or as an outright lie (similar to giving a fake phone number).

>People don't need lots of friends. They don't need 100s of possibly useful people on a website they have to maintain and update in order to "fit in".

I can guarantee that if you have the gregarious personality type that suits this type of lifestyle, having a large network of acquaintances that are conveniently accessible in a single location can indeed improve the quality of your life in a significant way. This is especially true for people who travel a lot or those who are in a university setting. It's not so much about social capital or social climbing but rather the simple availability of making plans and doing fun things with other people that would not happen without the specific dynamics made possible by Facebook.

"pressure to use Facebook and other forms of social media, especially if you are young"

How young? Data I've seen say that teenagers prefer Snapchat and think Facebook is for old people. The pressure is not the same across all age groups. That tells me that it's a generational / trend-based problem. And because of that, the pressure you speak of doesn't necessitate that we must use Facebook or <insert a similar social media platform>.

"having a large network of acquaintances that are conveniently accessible in a single location can indeed improve the quality of your life in a significant way"

Seemingly, but is that really the case? Can you speak of anyone specifically who sees a net benefit from the type of large network you're talking about?

I imagine most people with a gregarious lifestyle also suffer from stalking, harassment, identity-theft, and many other problems that result in them not even having personal social media accounts.

For people who have a large cast of fans to announce news to (musicians, celebrities, companies), social media can definitely help. But I wonder if we're certain of the net benefit, once you factor in all of the negative consequences (a few of which I just mentioned above).

There are other ways for those people to broadcast information to a large number of people without having to depend on Mark Zuckerberg or <insert another "hero">