ilovefuzz.com

Eivind August wrote:

echorec wrote:The hypocrisy of it is absurd to me: you made your account private, because you wanted to secure more control over your life, but you don't think other people should have dominion over their own privacy.

Are you sure this is the reasoning though? And not "oh, a random account, I don't need them to follow me"?

Oh no, I'm speculating out loud. I'm observing and critiquing it in terms of an anthropological sense. I find it fascinating how tribes/sub-groups are formed and how invisible, unwritten mandates mold these groups. It amazes me how groups organize and self-govern, even in the absence of a formal quorum.

Ghost Hip wrote:You are a complex human being and your reasons for remaining private are valid, just the same there are real complex human beings on the other end of these accounts who could have any myriad of reasons to be mindful of who they allow follow them. There are many reasons to want a private account. Such as to avoid employers from seeing your memes/content. I don't personally condone jumping to blaming women for complaining about being hit on/propositioned, but wouldn't an account with no face or posts be more suspicious than an account that appears more 'transparent'? (using transparent loosely since we're talking social media) Someone with no face or posts is more difficult to know and hold accountable and some people don't want to take that risk. You can say you are an observer all you want but you're asking people to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a creep, a potential employer, a family member snoopin', or just a bot/spam account.

I didn't really think about the employer/employee dynamic, because that's not a daily concern for me.

Here's some more details that summarize a fairly typical experience:

I'll get recommended an account (design studio for example). On the the page, they'll mention the founder of the company & provide an @rebeccaWarhol, so I'll click the link. My thought process is: This is an interesting company, maybe the founder has an interesting background. I'll click the provided link and send a request.

The founder could have 500 followers. The founder could have 12,000 followers. Whether you have 500 or 12,000 followers, you can't possibly have a close and intimate friendship with that many people. Nor could the argument be solidified that anyone did deep vetting on those 12,000 people.

If someone doesn't want their personal page advertised, perhaps they shouldn't put in in the company's header.

FTR, I don't have a zero post account. I'm not a blank screen, but I'm not putting in hours of my time toward learning the hippest hashtags either, with the goal of harvesting tens of thousands of e-admirers.

For the most part, my time on IG is spent rapidly jumping around through virtual galleries and art streams---archiving inspirational sketches and renderings for film projects. I seldom attempt to engage with strangers, but on the rare occasion that I do, I find most people to be quite forgettable. Also, FTR, I'm not emotionally invested in engaging with strangers. It's a casual, rapidfire indulgence---like speed pitching or something.

At least the Sweetwater catalogue makes sense.

echorec wrote:Also, FTR, I'm not emotionally invested in engaging with strangers. It's a casual, rapidfire indulgence---like speed pitching or something.

Isn't that what ILF is though?

I don't know, but I guess private accounts are usually just for friends/people you know kinda thing.

Sounds chummy. I don't like it.

coldbrightsunlight wrote:

echorec wrote:Also, FTR, I'm not emotionally invested in engaging with strangers. It's a casual, rapidfire indulgence---like speed pitching or something.

Isn't that what ILF is though?

I would say it varies greatly between participants and their subjective experiences. Many people here are essentially acquaintances, if not casual e-friends. I said strangers as in a cold opening—an initial introduction between two unfamiliar parties. There’s at least some familiarity here, albeit in an abstract sense.

fcknoise wrote:I don't know, but I guess private accounts are usually just for friends/people you know kinda thing.

Perhaps the Zuckster should incorporate that into his future promotional materials.


Come back to Instagram and refamiliarize yourself with 12,000 people you kinda know.

goroth wrote:At least the Sweetwater catalogue makes sense.

Even catalogs can break your heart, if you love them hard enough.

echorec wrote:

coldbrightsunlight wrote:

echorec wrote:Also, FTR, I'm not emotionally invested in engaging with strangers. It's a casual, rapidfire indulgence---like speed pitching or something.

Isn't that what ILF is though?

I would say it varies greatly between participants and their subjective experiences. Many people here are essentially acquaintances, if not casual e-friends. I said strangers as in a cold opening—an initial introduction between two unfamiliar parties. There’s at least some familiarity here, albeit in an abstract sense.

ah I see I interpreted the strangers thing as just, anonymous communications. I agree that we're not truly strangers here in the cold open sense.

echorec wrote:

Eivind August wrote:

echorec wrote:The hypocrisy of it is absurd to me: you made your account private, because you wanted to secure more control over your life, but you don't think other people should have dominion over their own privacy.

Are you sure this is the reasoning though? And not "oh, a random account, I don't need them to follow me"?

Oh no, I'm speculating out loud. I'm observing and critiquing it in terms of an anthropological sense. I find it fascinating how tribes/sub-groups are formed and how invisible, unwritten mandates mold these groups. It amazes me how groups organize and self-govern, even in the absence of a formal quorum.

You don't have to pretend this is an academic inquiry, you can just say you're upset that she chose not to accept your request. It's okay to feel rejected.

friendship wrote:You don't have to pretend this is an academic inquiry, you can just say you're upset that she chose not to accept your request. It's okay to feel rejected.

Nah. If I wanted to feel true rejection, I'd go back to the ham n' gravy fetish site.

friendship wrote:

echorec wrote:

Eivind August wrote:

echorec wrote:The hypocrisy of it is absurd to me: you made your account private, because you wanted to secure more control over your life, but you don't think other people should have dominion over their own privacy.

Are you sure this is the reasoning though? And not "oh, a random account, I don't need them to follow me"?

Oh no, I'm speculating out loud. I'm observing and critiquing it in terms of an anthropological sense. I find it fascinating how tribes/sub-groups are formed and how invisible, unwritten mandates mold these groups. It amazes me how groups organize and self-govern, even in the absence of a formal quorum.

You don't have to pretend this is an academic inquiry, you can just say you're upset that she chose not to accept your request. It's okay to feel rejected.

echorec wrote:Nah. If I wanted to feel true rejection, I'd go back to the ham n' gravy fetish site.