Facebook and Yahoo failures

[At home in NZ]

I am intrigued by this statement:
It's a shame that so many people are forced to use Facebook to keep in touch with their families - perhaps one day there will be a viable alternative.

What makes you think people are forced to use Facebook?

Viable alternatives DO exist, in the form of telephone, email, text and the written word (letters).

I do not use Facebook but manage quite well to keep in touch with my wider family.

 

[peter]

What makes you think people are forced to use Facebook?

To quote a close member of my family, when asked why they hadn't responded to any of my emails "Oh, I don't look at emails any more, I only use Facebook".

Even if I was prepared to write individual letters or make individual phone calls that wouldn't ensure that I was informed about what was going on, because everyone else seems to rely on broadcasting information (most of it trivial) on Facebook.

All families are different, but I'm sure my family isn't unique. I appreciate that I might feel differently if I had children and grandchildren of my own, but I'm hardly unusual in not having offspring - according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children.

 

[Helen7]

To quote a close member of my family, when asked why they hadn't responded to any of my emails "Oh, I don't look at emails any more, I only use Facebook".

I can sympathise with this. My sons rarely reply to my emails, but if I message them (by text or Facebook Messenger) they reply instantly.

 

[PhilGee]

Not being a "mobile phone addict", I generally use e-mails for messages as my keyboard has keys suitable for my fingers and the odd error is easily rectified rather the frequent corrections needed with "fat finger" syndrome my mobile has

As an aside, why do software developers use a "tiled touch screen" compatible interface for a remote controlled TV box? Text is so much easier to understand at viewing distances than some random image with no program specific meaning.

Phil

 

[Pauline]

To quote a close member of my family, when asked why they hadn't responded to any of my emails "Oh, I don't look at emails any more, I only use Facebook".

I'm not sure how anyone can get away with this. In my experience email is necessary for all sorts of things, not just communicating with family - not everything can be dealt with via Facebook.

 

[canadianbeth]

I only use FB for communicating with people who share a common interest (cross stitching) or distant family members. Otherwise, I e-mail or text, or even pick up the phone, although I have a strong aversion to the phone . As for e-mail, I open that first when logging onto the computer. (two LC messages in there this morning )

 

[At home in NZ]

As for e-mail, I open that first when logging onto the computer.

Me too, but...............
so many people only use their mobile phone for everything, including emails. I don't have a smartphone as I view it as an unnecessary expense. I do have a mobile phone for texting and calling but prefer to use a landline and a computer.

I have relatives in England that have a landline and no computer. Ditto some people I know here in NZ.

I guess it's a case of different strokes for different folks but it gets up my nose when it is assumed that everybody has a smartphone and that everybody is on Facebook.

 

[canadianbeth]

I have a smartphone and an iPad but prefer the computer. We do not have a landline. What annoys me is the media assuming everyone has a computer and telling people to access this or that website. Even the phone or utility company, when I call about a problem, tell me to go online and chat about the problem. Many of my friends, in the same age bracket as I, do not own a computer and see no point to getting one at this stage of their lives.

 

[peter]

I have a smartphone and an iPad but prefer the computer. We do not have a landline. What annoys me is the media assuming everyone has a computer and telling people to access this or that website. Even the phone or utility company, when I call about a problem, tell me to go online and chat about the problem. Many of my friends, in the same age bracket as I, do not own a computer and see no point to getting one at this stage of their lives.

Clearly there are reasons for your friends to get a computer, tablet, or smartphone, just as there are reasons for me to log-in to Facebook occasionally, even though I'd rather not. The fact they see no point in getting online isn't because there is no point.

I suppose the real problem is that the older we get the more resistant we are to doing new things, even when it's in our best interests.

Not having Internet access today is a significant disability, and that's is why 20 years ago I came up with a way to get the Internet into every home which had a phone line, at no cost to the householders. Sadly BT turned down my idea (which could have made them a fortune), and we're still in a position where a large section of society is unconnected.

 

[PhilGee]

Clearly there are reasons for your friends to get a computer, tablet, or smartphone, just as there are reasons for me to log-in to Facebook occasionally, even though I'd rather not. The fact they see no point in getting online isn't because there is no point.
....

It isn't whether there is a reason or not, it is a matter of choice. It should be the individual who chooses whether to have internet access/smartphones or not rather then the other party insisting they have it. I would, of course, not object so much if insistence in using the internet/smartphone came with coverage of the total bill for such activities and the necessary support for those, like my wife, who are technophobic; but .... it ain't gonna happen.

 

[peter]

It isn't whether there is a reason or not, it is a matter of choice. It should be the individual who chooses whether to have internet access/smartphones or not rather then the other party insisting they have it. I would, of course, not object so much if insistence in using the internet/smartphone came with coverage of the total bill for such activities and the necessary support for those, like my wife, who are technophobic; but .... it ain't gonna happen.

The Internet makes most aspects of everyday life more efficient. If people choose to be Luddites they are going to pay a price, whether in reduced choice, reduced service, or higher prices - probably all three in most cases.

Otherwise we'd be paying extra to accommodate their fads..

 

[Pauline]

If people choose to be Luddites .........

That may be a little bit harsh. There are other reasons why people don't use the internet besides choosing to be Luddites.

 

[peter]

That may be a little bit harsh. There are other reasons why people don't use the internet besides choosing to be Luddites.

Such as? Presumably not disabilities, because that's something that the web caters for very well (many LostCousins members have disabilities of one sort or another - there's at least one who is blind). It surely can't be cost, because the cheapest broadband is virtually free, at least in the UK. And presumably not because they might look foolish, because by not using it they virtually guarantee that many people will think them foolish.

Maybe there are some clues in this Lancaster University study from 2018?

Extract:

Dr Knowles and Professor Hanson call this 'playing the age card' and acknowledge the utility in older adults blaming their age for their non-use of digital technologies.

Dr Knowles said: "Older adults themselves are often the worst perpetuators of the myth that old age precludes engagement with a myriad of digital technologies. Doing so allows older adults a privilege not available to most working-age adults to take personal stands against the aspects of technology they find worrying, threatening or just plain annoying."

 

[Helen7]

Such as?

I know people (and not just oldies) who don't use the internet, not because they are opposed to new technology as such, but because they prefer to speak to a real person (in person or by phone), read printed newspapers, write and receive letters, etc. They'll go shopping in real stores where they can see the goods instead of ordering on-line. Of course, this does put them at a disadvantage in many situations, but as others have said, it's their choice.

 

[peter]

I know people (and not just oldies) who don't use the internet, not because they are opposed to new technology as such, but because they prefer to speak to a real person (in person or by phone), read printed newspapers, write and receive letters, etc. They'll go shopping in real stores where they can see the goods instead of ordering on-line. Of course, this does put them at a disadvantage in many situations, but as others have said, it's their choice.

Quite right - it's their choice, and if they make that choice they can't expect to get the same combination of price, quality, service and convenience that I get.

I buy shoes online because it's the only way of getting shoes that are comfortable; most clothes I buy in-store, mainly because my favourite shop doesn't sell online. I buy almost all groceries in-store, but if I can't get what I want from my usual supermarket I may order online rather than make a special trip to another supermarket.

Because I'm flexible I get the biggest choice and the best price/quality combination. I accept that there are others who are less flexible - but I don't feel sorry for them, or believe that they have any right to feel aggrieved. History shows that those who don't move with the times get left behind.

 

[Pauline]

Such as?

An informed and considered choice not to use the internet.

As others have said, people have the right to make their own choices on such matters, but they also have the right to expect their choices to be respected, and not to be put down by those who make different choices.

Respecting other people's choices doesn't mean we have to agree with them, but we do need to give people credit for having weighed up the pros and cons before reaching a decision that is right for them. Some of today's non-users are former internet users so have first-hand experience of the pros and cons.

As for disabilities, there are some - cognitive difficulties such as short term memory loss, for example - which may make using the internet very difficult, if not impossible, for some people.

 

[peter]

An informed and considered choice not to use the internet.
As others have said, people have the right to make their own choices on such matters, but they also have the right to expect their choices to be respected, and not to be put down by those who make different choices.

Respecting other people's choices doesn't mean we have to agree with them, but we do need to give people credit for having weighed up the pros and cons before reaching a decision that is right for them.

See my early reply. They can choose but having made their choice they shouldn't complain about the downsides.

Some of today's non-users are former internet users so have first-hand experience of the pros and cons.

Very few, I suspect. And probably for the wrong reasons.

As for disabilities, there are some - cognitive difficulties such as short term memory loss, for example - which may make using the internet very difficult, if not impossible, for some people.

That's actually one of the disabilities I had in mind when posting earlier, and it seemed to me that someone with short-term memory loss might find it easier to do things online than over the phone.

But most people with cognitive difficulties need support from family members, and providing that support is generally far easier when the helpers can do things online. For example, I could manage my father's banking, direct debits etc online but trying to deal with (say) British Gas over the phone was a nightmare.

 

[Pauline]

They can choose but having made their choice they shouldn't complain about the downsides.

Are they complaining? But this, of course, applies to all of us in whatever choices we make. And most choices we make will have downsides - though one person's downside may be another person's upside.

Very few, I suspect. And probably for the wrong reasons.

Not in their (equally legitimate) opinion presumably?

providing that support is generally far easier when the helpers can do things online.

Agreed, but that only requires the helpers to be internet enabled. I was thinking more of people using the internet independently.

 

[peter]

Are they complaining?

For obvious reasons they're not involved in this discussion. But the discussion began when canadianbeth 'complained' on behalf of her friends who don't use the Internet.

But this, of course, applies to all of us in whatever choices we make. And most choices we make will have downsides - though one person's downside may be another person's upside.

Indeed, and if I was complaining about the downsides of my choices you could point out the inconsistency.

Very few, I suspect. And probably for the wrong reasons.

Not in their (equally legitimate) opinion presumably?

People are entitled to their own opinions, but it doesn't make them right. Most people are very poor at assessing risk, for example.

Agreed, but that only requires the helpers to be internet enabled.

Sadly not true - the person being helped may object.

 

[At home in NZ]

But the discussion began when canadianbeth 'complained' on behalf of her friends who don't use the Internet.

I cannot see anything that looks like a complaint, statements of fact are not complaints.

As I said earlier it's different strokes for different folks. We are all individuals, we all have free will and if we choose not to own or use things that's our prerogative.