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

mrsconn23

Q. No Facebook allowed: We have a vacation place in a popular tourist area. It’s pretty rural, there’s no cell coverage, and we had to go through a lot of engineering and effort to get ourselves workable internet service. My wife and I are both pretty strongly averse to social media. We’ve therefore blocked all the major social media services at our homes. 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. I feel like they wouldn’t be likewise affronted by foregoing meat as guests at a vegetarian house. Is this so different?

banana468

You want to control your guests' ability to communicate with the outside world and you're wondering why guests seem to be put out?  

If you're wanting no photos of your property posted on social media, I can possibly get on board with that.    If you want to do that yourselves or with your children, fine.

But restricting your guests use of social media makes you look like a sanctimonious dictatorship.   Do you really want to be compared with countries known to restrict the freedoms of their citizens and visitors?    If you want to lay it out and make it known that those are the terms for staying there then go for it.  But with your choice comes the need to accept that others may think you're a controlling asshole.

MissKittyDanger

I find it this odd.

It's one thing to not want to be on it and you can suggest you'd rather people not on their phones in general in your home, but you can't force someone to not be on fb or any social media. What if a friend's entire job was social media related?

Also many thoughtful vegetarians will allow meat in their house. A friend of my uncle's is vegetarian and he has a separate grill if people would like to grill meat at his home because - as he states - "it's my choice to be vegetarian, not theirs"

STARMOON44

I mean it’s fine, it’s your house, and if you’d rather people not come than have FB, that’s your prerogative. But if you want people to like you and not think you’re a sanctimonious controlling jerk you’re failing at that. 

kvruns

It is their place and their business so as long as they are upfront with people then they can do what they want. I personally find it strange that they are ok with some internet but not others but whatever

mrsconn23

I feel like they wouldn’t be likewise affronted by foregoing meat as guests at a vegetarian house. Is this so different?

This is a false equivalence.   If their guests showed up and demanded meat knowing that the hosts are vegetarians that don't provide meat to their guests, then I could be on team LW. 

But LW's tack is actually that their guests are showing up with their own meat and willing to prepare it for themselves and not involve LW at all, and LW is telling them they cannot bring the meat into the house in any way, shape, or form.  And if the person questions the LW, the LW is treating them to a lecture on why meat eating is bad and immoral. 

missJeanLouise

Why tell people there is internet at all?

MissKittyDanger

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

People assume when they go to someone's house there will be internet access.
Even if there isn't, people will use data.

STARMOON44

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

I think it would go over much better to get a landline phone and just tell people the Home is so remote there’s no cell service or WiFi, that they have to actually use a computer with an Ethernet cable. But it’s hard to hide that internet exists if you’re using your devices for news or Netflix or email or whatever you’ve judged is acceptable 

missJeanLouise

MissKittyDanger said:

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

People assume when they go to someone's house there will be internet access.
Even if there isn't, people will use data.

Not if it is a remote area with shitty cell service.
Eta: what is stopping people from using their data to access Facebook anyway?

STARMOON44 said:

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

I think it would go over much better to get a landline phone and just tell people the Home is so remote there’s no cell service or WiFi, that they have to actually use a computer with an Ethernet cable. But it’s hard to hide that internet exists if you’re using your devices for news or Netflix or email or whatever you’ve judged is acceptable 

You are so right, this is how I was picturing it. My grandparents have a cabin on a lake. They get satellite tv but the computer is hooked up to Ethernet (the might have WiFi by now it has been several years since I have been up there). Netflix or something would be a dead giveaway. 

I also wonder if these these people who aren’t on social media are aware of/ blocked anything besides facebook. Tinder? Snapchat? 

MissKittyDanger

missJeanLouise said:

MissKittyDanger said:

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

People assume when they go to someone's house there will be internet access.
Even if there isn't, people will use data.

Not if it is a remote area with shitty cell service.
Eta: what is stopping people from using their data to access Facebook anyway? 

It doesn't sound like they live in a remote area .... if they did, it would make sense. But since they don't mention where they live, it's hard to tell

banana468

I'm guessing that if their area is that remote they can't use data to access because they have no reception.   I have unlimited data but it requires my phone to access a cell tower somewhere. 

STARMOON44

MissKittyDanger said:

missJeanLouise said:

MissKittyDanger said:

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

People assume when they go to someone's house there will be internet access.
Even if there isn't, people will use data.

Not if it is a remote area with shitty cell service.
Eta: what is stopping people from using their data to access Facebook anyway? 

It doesn't sound like they live in a remote area .... if they did, it would make sense. But since they don't mention where they live, it's hard to tell

It says in the question “it’s pretty rural, there’s no cell coverage.”

MissKittyDanger

STARMOON44 said:

MissKittyDanger said:

missJeanLouise said:

MissKittyDanger said:

missJeanLouise said:

Why tell people there is internet at all?

People assume when they go to someone's house there will be internet access.
Even if there isn't, people will use data.

Not if it is a remote area with shitty cell service.
Eta: what is stopping people from using their data to access Facebook anyway? 

It doesn't sound like they live in a remote area .... if they did, it would make sense. But since they don't mention where they live, it's hard to tell

It says in the question “it’s pretty rural, there’s no cell coverage.”

Oh! I completely missed that part!

CharmedPam

missJeanLouise said:

Not if it is a remote area with shitty cell service.
Eta: what is stopping people from using their data to access Facebook anyway?

This.  

baconsmom

Fake question. Dude clearly has no friends. 

short+sassy

I'll take the UO on this, lol.  Full disclosure, I rarely use FB and do not understand people's addiction to it.

They have a strong stand against social media.  They don't want it accessed at their vacation home.  THEY are opening their home in, what sounds like a popular and probably fantastic place, to their friends.  Their friends need to abide by their rules and not get their noses out of joint about it, even if they don't understand the reasoning and/or think it's dumb.  Period.

If I had friend offer for me to stay at her beachside condo in Hawaii, but on the condition that I don't bring anything purple with me.  Because purple has historically been an elitist color and they don't agree with that.  I would think that was really eccentric and odd, but my response would be, "Thanks!!!!  You're the best!!!  I promise to double check my luggage and not bring anything purple."

mrsconn23

@short+sassy,  I agree with most of your take on this and while I do use FB...I can be without it for a weekend, week, whatever. 

I think my (and other people's) reaction to this LW is that they come off very sanctimonious in their 'reasons' for why they bar people from using social media in their vacation home. They want to go out of their way to make a point  and then people react, and they're all, "OMG, we're being so nice to these people and they're greedy assholes!"   Well, if you present it in a way where you come off as judgmental of other people's choices, then yeah...it's going to put their back up. 

Social media has its benefits and drawbacks, as much as anything else can.   And just because you block social media, it doesn't mean people won't be on their devices doing something else (meaning the argument for 'quality time' is thin, IMO). 

There are a million ways to skin this cat and LW has gone this route instead of say, "Hey, because it's taken us a lot to build our network here and we want it to run smoothly, we've blocked some sites that seem to slow us down out here. Sorry!" 

lovesclimbing

I guess I'm the odd one out, and I never assume I'll be using someone else's wifi while at their home. I used my own phone data at my parents' this Christmas. Same at my in-laws last year. 

I say just don't let them use your wifi. I also don't have a problem with them blocking certain sites. I don't see much difference from them blocking pornographic sites or Netflix or YouTube. My sister used my parents' internet while we were there and my mom specifically told them not to watch online videos because they have limited gigs. 

My H and I have limited wifi, and I assume others do as well, so I'm not going to take and use theirs. Also, it's vacation! I didn't even check social media most days while there this Christmas. It was a nice and probably needed break. 

charlotte989875

lovesclimbing said:

I guess I'm the odd one out, and I never assume I'll be using someone else's wifi while at their home. I used my own phone data at my parents' this Christmas. Same at my in-laws last year. 

I say just don't let them use your wifi. I also don't have a problem with them blocking certain sites. I don't see much difference from them blocking pornographic sites or Netflix or YouTube. My sister used my parents' internet while we were there and my mom specifically told them not to watch online videos because they have limited gigs. 

My H and I have limited wifi, and I assume others do as well, so I'm not going to take and use theirs. Also, it's vacation! I didn't even check social media most days while there this Christmas. It was a nice and probably needed break. 

You think blocking Facebook is the same thing as Blocking porn sites? 

lovesclimbing

charlotte989875 said:

lovesclimbing said:

I guess I'm the odd one out, and I never assume I'll be using someone else's wifi while at their home. I used my own phone data at my parents' this Christmas. Same at my in-laws last year. 

I say just don't let them use your wifi. I also don't have a problem with them blocking certain sites. I don't see much difference from them blocking pornographic sites or Netflix or YouTube. My sister used my parents' internet while we were there and my mom specifically told them not to watch online videos because they have limited gigs. 

My H and I have limited wifi, and I assume others do as well, so I'm not going to take and use theirs. Also, it's vacation! I didn't even check social media most days while there this Christmas. It was a nice and probably needed break. 

You think blocking Facebook is the same thing as Blocking porn sites? 

Or Netflix or YouTube. No, not really. Some people have an issue with social media. Some people don't. Some people have an issue with porn. Some people don't. 

charlotte989875

Have a problem with social media? Don't use it.

Have a problem with porn? Don't use it. 

Don't want pictures of your home on social media? IMO totally reasonable to ask someone not to post them. 

Blocking an entire site because you don't like it? I think it's ridiculous and I'm not surprised people are put out. You're telling them how to spend their time, and unless it's affecting you (it probably isn't) it's not your place to tell them what to do. 

Offer internet or don't. But don't tell people what they can and can't go on. 

STARMOON44

charlotte989875 said:

Have a problem with social media? Don't use it.

Have a problem with porn? Don't use it. 

Don't want pictures of your home on social media? IMO totally reasonable to ask someone not to post them. 

Blocking an entire site because you don't like it? I think it's ridiculous and I'm not surprised people are put out. You're telling them how to spend their time, and unless it's affecting you (it probably isn't) it's not your place to tell them what to do. 

Offer internet or don't. But don't tell people what they can and can't go on. 

And if you do, don’t be surprised when they don’t like it!

southernbelle0915

I'm with @short+sassy and @lovesclimbing on this one. When you go to someone's house, they might have certain TV channels blocked or websites blocked or whatever. They might have certain house rules - like no phones at the dinner table or please close the bathroom door when you take a poop. Whatever. When you stay at someone else's house, it's right to be respectful of their house rules. If you don't like it, stay somewhere else.

I do agree with @mrsconn23 though that LW's holier than thou attitude has my eyeballs stuck back in my head. 

short+sassy

southernbelle0915 said:

I'm with @short+sassy and @lovesclimbing on this one. When you go to someone's house, they might have certain TV channels blocked or websites blocked or whatever. They might have certain house rules - like no phones at the dinner table or please close the bathroom door when you take a poop. Whatever. When you stay at someone else's house, it's right to be respectful of their house rules. If you don't like it, stay somewhere else.

I do agree with @mrsconn23 though that LW's holier than thou attitude has my eyeballs stuck back in my head. 

I think this is a fair assessment also.  It might be more how they're coming across with the rule, than the rule itself.

As to porn, my H used to run all things IT at a company he partially owned.  Nobody cared if anyone watched porn at work, as long as they were getting their work done.  But my H cared about anyone streaming videos, of whatever subject matter.  Because it chewed up band width and slowed stuff down.

One of the employees would regularly get, sometimes multiple times a day, e-mails from his brother with porn links or videos in them.  My H told him that his brother needed to knock it off or he was going to block that guy's e-mail, lol.

ernursej

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. 

Jen4948

If a host wants to block websites or make any other rules for his or her own home, that's his or her privilege, but I agree that it does make that host look overcontrolling and self-righteous.

But other people's not accepting that host's invitations is their privilege.

southernbelle0915

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.

banana468

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.   

southernbelle0915

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. 

mrsconn23

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.