So, no Prudie letters yet...but this caught my eye.

short+sassy · January 2018

@banana468, like your example with your brother, I do also understand that FB isn't always just a casual, not-so -serious way to catch up.

Many businesses nowadays use it for all kinds of stuff. Advertising, responding to customers/potential customers, etc.

(Not directed at Banana) But, at the end of the day, LW's house and LW's rules. Especially when they are graciously offering accommodations to their friends at a popular place. Guests are given the parameters ahead of time. If they know they will need to use FB for more urgent matters, they can stay at a nearby hotel.

banana468 · January 2018

mrsconn23 said:

southernbelle0915 said:

banana468 said:

southernbelle0915 said:

ernursej said:

I don’t have any problem with sites being blocked but then the hosts can’t be upset that people don’t want to play in the sandbox. To me, this is similar to saying no personal pictures at a wedding ceremony. Let adults be adults and determine their own internet usage.

Eh, I agree with you and I don't. Again, if someone *who pays for their own internet service in their own home* wants to block certain sites (or not), that's their choice.

If I go to my friend's house and I can't binge on my usual internet diet of anime porn, 4chan, facebook trolling, and brietbart, oh well. That's what my house is for. (sarcasm on the diet).

I really don't understand this entitled stance, like if people stay at someone else's house they should have free reign of whatever they want.

I agree with you to an extent. If you're staying in the LW's home then you need to adhere to their rules. If I knew they were against something else (like drinking alcohol) then I wouldn't go out of my way to bring that in to prove a point that I'm a grown up.

So my thought process is - LW can have all the rules he wants about his/her home. It seems like they are at least transparent in what is and isn't available in their house. They're entitled to that.

However they need to accept that by going out of their way to actively stop the flow of information and communication to the outside world, guests may dislike this, may find their overall stance to be a sanctimonious turnoff and they may find that fewer people want to stay in their home or even sit with them for a meal.

It isn't that they chose to opt out of social media. It's that they are thumbing down their nose at those who do and they're attempting to control the flow of news and information and communication methods to their guests. As homeowners they're in their rights to do that. However they don't have the right to tell their guests how to feel.

FWIW, FB is the main way I can reach some friends and family members by message. DH and I do not have texting added to our phone plans and try to avoid using that as much as possible. We email or use Google Hangouts. As another example, my brother works odd hours in retail and therefore he's often off when I'm working and vice versa. Facebook message is a quick way to ask him a question about anything - from something silly to finding out if he's coming to my home for dinner. By cutting me off from Facebook that inhibits my main method of getting in touch with my sibiling. Can I work around it? Sure. But I roll my eyes at someone who hates social media so much that s/he went out of their way to stop the flow of communication.

Again, this LW just doesn't have FB. So for him and his wife, they could simply not join FB and it's not a big deal for them because they simply don't participate. But they've taken the extra step to tell their guests that they've judged social media so much that it's not just their own participation that isn't happening in their home. They think NO ONE should use it.

Also, given that the President of our country is hardcore using Twitter and chooses to use that as one of his main ways of reaching the American people, I also question why the LW is attempting to try to control the flow of information that's actually available to their guests.

Their sanctimonious attitude is objectively piss poor. We all agree on that.

It's a little dramatic to say they're trying to tell their guests how to feel about social media. The guy literally says "We often invite friends to come stay with us—and we give a heads-up that there’s no Facebook et al. available. Some guests have seemed put out by this. Is it so unreasonable? We believe that social media is monetized narcissism, that it distracts us, invades our privacy (we don’t want our property to be free content for these companies), and interferes with having quality time with our guests—that would be our answer if someone were to ask why we block the services, but we don’t volunteer the reasoning."

So they've decided to block a website via an internet subscription they pay for. And they know it's a popular website so give their friends a head's up before they come and visit. And, as obnoxious as his reasons are, he doesn't offer them unless asked. I really don't think this is that big of a deal.

The LW's sanctimonious tone feels like they almost goad people into asking why they're blocked from FB (or whatever) so that LW can lord their smug superiority over the 'sheeple' who use social media.

LW might in the 'surprise vegan wedding' category of people.

Yeah, it's baiting to me. It seems to push for people to ask the reason why.

Maybe my choice of wording was poor saying that they're trying to tell their guests how to feel but if asked they seem pretty clear that they're trying to shame those who use it.

They're more than allowed to have the rules for their cabins in the woods. I just hope that they also have ladders to help them get up onto their high horses.

southernbelle0915 · January 2018

mrsconn23 said:

southernbelle0915 said:

banana468 said:

southernbelle0915 said:

ernursej said:

I don’t have any problem with sites being blocked but then the hosts can’t be upset that people don’t want to play in the sandbox. To me, this is similar to saying no personal pictures at a wedding ceremony. Let adults be adults and determine their own internet usage.

Eh, I agree with you and I don't. Again, if someone *who pays for their own internet service in their own home* wants to block certain sites (or not), that's their choice.

If I go to my friend's house and I can't binge on my usual internet diet of anime porn, 4chan, facebook trolling, and brietbart, oh well. That's what my house is for. (sarcasm on the diet).

I really don't understand this entitled stance, like if people stay at someone else's house they should have free reign of whatever they want.

I agree with you to an extent. If you're staying in the LW's home then you need to adhere to their rules. If I knew they were against something else (like drinking alcohol) then I wouldn't go out of my way to bring that in to prove a point that I'm a grown up.

So my thought process is - LW can have all the rules he wants about his/her home. It seems like they are at least transparent in what is and isn't available in their house. They're entitled to that.

However they need to accept that by going out of their way to actively stop the flow of information and communication to the outside world, guests may dislike this, may find their overall stance to be a sanctimonious turnoff and they may find that fewer people want to stay in their home or even sit with them for a meal.

It isn't that they chose to opt out of social media. It's that they are thumbing down their nose at those who do and they're attempting to control the flow of news and information and communication methods to their guests. As homeowners they're in their rights to do that. However they don't have the right to tell their guests how to feel.

FWIW, FB is the main way I can reach some friends and family members by message. DH and I do not have texting added to our phone plans and try to avoid using that as much as possible. We email or use Google Hangouts. As another example, my brother works odd hours in retail and therefore he's often off when I'm working and vice versa. Facebook message is a quick way to ask him a question about anything - from something silly to finding out if he's coming to my home for dinner. By cutting me off from Facebook that inhibits my main method of getting in touch with my sibiling. Can I work around it? Sure. But I roll my eyes at someone who hates social media so much that s/he went out of their way to stop the flow of communication.

Again, this LW just doesn't have FB. So for him and his wife, they could simply not join FB and it's not a big deal for them because they simply don't participate. But they've taken the extra step to tell their guests that they've judged social media so much that it's not just their own participation that isn't happening in their home. They think NO ONE should use it.

Also, given that the President of our country is hardcore using Twitter and chooses to use that as one of his main ways of reaching the American people, I also question why the LW is attempting to try to control the flow of information that's actually available to their guests.

Their sanctimonious attitude is objectively piss poor. We all agree on that.

It's a little dramatic to say they're trying to tell their guests how to feel about social media. The guy literally says "We often invite friends to come stay with us—and we give a heads-up that there’s no Facebook et al. available. Some guests have seemed put out by this. Is it so unreasonable? We believe that social media is monetized narcissism, that it distracts us, invades our privacy (we don’t want our property to be free content for these companies), and interferes with having quality time with our guests—that would be our answer if someone were to ask why we block the services, but we don’t volunteer the reasoning."

So they've decided to block a website via an internet subscription they pay for. And they know it's a popular website so give their friends a head's up before they come and visit. And, as obnoxious as his reasons are, he doesn't offer them unless asked. I really don't think this is that big of a deal.

The LW's sanctimonious tone feels like they almost goad people into asking why they're blocked from FB (or whatever) so that LW can lord their smug superiority over the 'sheeple' who use social media.

LW might in the 'surprise vegan wedding' category of people.

Oh it for sure is. It's like "we NEVER open this door. It's REALLY important that you never, ever open this door." If these people are as extreme as LW sounds, I guarantee the friends and family invited to stay with them already know this and know they're in for a soap box lecture if they ask why.

Of course these people sound miserable. And the number of friends who aren't exactly like them definitely dwindles over time. But house rules is house rules. Whether the dude says "just as a heads up, we block facebook" or "just as a heads up, you can't bring your dog" they're entitled to make their own house rules.

southernbelle0915 · January 2018

And yes, @mrsconn23 - they'd totally be the type to have a vegan only wedding. But they'd probably be the type to advertise it and talk about it at every opportunity and their favors would be donations to vegan lobbying groups and cow sanctuaries.

banana468 · January 2018

short+sassy said:

@banana468, like your example with your brother, I do also understand that FB isn't always just a casual, not-so -serious way to catch up.
Many businesses nowadays use it for all kinds of stuff. Advertising, responding to customers/potential customers, etc.
(Not directed at Banana) But, at the end of the day, LW's house and LW's rules. Especially when they are graciously offering accommodations to their friends at a popular place. Guests are given the parameters ahead of time. If they know they will need to use FB for more urgent matters, they can stay at a nearby hotel.

You're right on that. They're well within their rights to state the terms of the arrangement.

My overall point is that while they get to make the terms, they don't get to control the eye rolling or judgement that comes with those terms.

On these boards all the time we say that actions have consequences. For the LW I think the actions that they're taking and their attitude have to come with the understanding that the reason people are rolling their eyes at them is because when asked they clarify that these things aren't available because they thumb their nose at the social media platform and by extension, the users. It's a not so thinly veiled insult at those immersed in the Facebook / Twitter / Instagram universe. Maybe I'm reading more into that than their intention but it seems to me like they're attempting to thumb noses and imply that their better than those who use social media.

So exactly what is the LW wanting here? IMO it's not the terms of the agreement to use his house. It's whether or not he thinks he gets to insult friends without them finding his comments, well....insulting.

mrsconn23 · January 2018

banana468 said:

So exactly what is the LW wanting here? IMO it's not the terms of the agreement to use his house. It's whether or not he thinks he gets to insult friends without them finding his comments, well....insulting.

Yep, it's the sanctimony about it all and LW acting like their 'decision' is the best one. I roll my eyes the same at people who try to lord their veganism, cross-fitting, child-feeding choices, screen time limits, religion, etc. over other people as being the superior choice to anything else.

You've made a choice for you...great! Imma be over here choosing my choices.

MesmrEwe · January 2018

I have no problem with a "Please no posting on social media pictures inside our vacation rental/home", or accessing certain "adult" type websites via their wifi, I wouldn't be put off by that at all as I think it's beyond reasonable. That said, there are these places called "Cults" that restrict their "guests" access in remote areas to communications with the outside world, and I'm pretty sure their guests are thinking of their families who that is how they keep in communications to know they're safe or they're "that person" for someone. I just think this one goes a little too far into the creepy factor in modern society to restrict like that...

So, no Prudie letters yet...but this caught my eye.

Re: So, no Prudie letters yet...but this caught my eye.

Choose Another Board

Search Boards