> I do not believe that Facebook is a net positive and believe it should be avoided.

I agree with you.

I'm very happy I'm socially allowed to not be on Facebook.

There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations.

Your social solution can't work for them. They need a technical solution or a different social solution.

And, no, the 'different social solution' isn't going to be "Get everyone to accept LGBTQ people."

    "There are a lot of people who are essentially forced to be on Facebook due to social obligations."

While I don't agree with John in this case (which is unusual), nobody is forced to be on Facebook. You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure. Many of us have chosen to not create an account and haven't suffered in the least because of it.

All the examples in this thread of reasons you're "forced" to be on the site amount to missing parties and not seeing pictures -- and it's a really vapid argument. It might suck to not see those pictures, but there's nobody forcing you to do so. It's still entirely up to you.

To clarify, I am not victim blaming. This argument is addressing the claim that a Facebook account is a requirement of youth. It is not. Choosing privacy over pleasure might be an unattractive option for some but it's an option all the same.

It's really vapid to want to hang out with friends who use Facebook to set up social events?

Of course not, but that's not what I said. It's a vapid argument to claim social obligation forces one to use a website.

Yes, it's annoying if your friends don't include you - but there's still no obligation. You're not being forced into anything.

> still no obligation

Most people consider social obligations to be obligations.

> But social events are not mandatory was what I was after.

Again, it depends on what quality of life you can live with, and how you're able to achieve that quality of life. Most people would be in serious emotional pain if forced to live as hermits, which is what happens to you after you alienate enough of your friends. Depending on your circumstances, Facebook (and the leaving of it) could play a large role in that.

> To clarify, I am not victim blaming.

You're skirting pretty close.

> You have the option to choose between privacy and social pressure.

Well, that depends on the nature of the pressure, now doesn't it? Most people can't go through life without their support network, and by 'can't' I mean can not. If being part of your network means friending them on Facebook to avoid alienating them, then that's what people have to do, isn't it?

Come on.

Facebook isn't a human right or requirement. "Need" is too strong a word, you need food, water, oxygen, sleep... you "want" Facebook.

Facebook offers a service, use it or don't. It has settings, set them and if it still doesn't work for you then don't use it. Noone is "forced" to use Facebook, "forced to..." is not equivalent to "it would be really nice to...".

> you need food, water, oxygen, sleep...

...and human social contact, which for certain demographics of social groupings all but requires Facebook.

It all depends on what the "Or else" is, doesn't it? If it is just parties, then that's one thing. If it's being ostracized from your peers and family, that's a steep price. People have done terrible things to avoid ostracism like that.