Slashdot Mirror


Women More Likely To Unfriend Than Men

Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that a study by the Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project shows that women are more likely than men to delete friends from their online social networks like Facebook and tend to choose more restrictive privacy settings. Sixty-seven percent of women who maintain a social networking profile said they have deleted friends compared with 58 percent of men. The study also found that men are nearly twice as likely as women to have posted updates, comments, photos or videos that they later regret (PDF). 'Even as social media users become more active curators of their profile, a small group of what might be described as trigger-happy users say they post updates, comments, photos, or videos that they later regret sharing.'"

36 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing to see here by dugjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The study also found that men are nearly twice as likely as women to have posted updates, comments, photos or videos that they later regret " or "Men more impulsive than women" Hmmm. Big surprise there.

    --
    My brain is overly lubricated
    1. Re:Nothing to see here by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does this reflect higher concern re stalking (in the spectrum from the dangerous, life ruining/threatening kind to I don't want an old boyfriend to know about me)?
      Seems likely to me.
      I bet those of us worried about privacy in a big brother, what-can-future-employers-find-out-about-me way are more male than female, since that's probably correlated with higher computer literacy.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More like "Women less regretful than men, more likely to blame others."

      That's possibly true. Socially women are seen as victims if people misuse or ogle their pictures, where as men are seen as "fair game". This would certainly encourage women to feel "poor me, I din nothing wrong its all these nasty people", whereas men would think "oh how could I have been so dumb".

    3. Re:Nothing to see here by BobK65 · · Score: 2

      That 67 vs 58 unfriending figure should have been controlled according to the average number of friends for each of the sexes. I suspect they wouldn't be equal. Even as a separate category average friends for each of the sexes would be interesting to know. Meh. Maybe they just didn't want to deal with classifying transvestites.

    4. Re:Nothing to see here by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

      While you're right on the first one, try telling yourself the second one while watching me curse the motherfucker that keeps breaking into my house and moving my fucking keys.

      I'll get that son of a bitch if it's the last thing I do (it will be the last thing I do).

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  2. Still holding out. by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Informative

    I still don't have a Facebook account, and am no worse the wear for it. I have noted that of my family and friends who do have accounts, the ones who typically talk about their Facebook activity the most are definitely the women, and a lot of that talk seems to swing between gossip and outright vicious assaults. I'll just stay out of that mess, thanks.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
    1. Re:Still holding out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook is like most other technologies. You get out of it what you put into it.

      News at 11.

    2. Re:Still holding out. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      1) Tried it out before the privacy debacle hit the fan, then found myself held captive with Facebook flat out refusing to delete me even though I followed the 2 week removal procedure to the letter.

      Sounds like a compelling reason to stay away from Facebook, to demand that your account be deleted, and to let the news media know about what they are doing.

      2) Some of my friends have already been suckered in and Facebook has many communication facilities locked down to members only, so I dusted it off as the only way to stay in touch with them.

      "I am not on Facebook"; if your friends refuse to talk to you because you do not use Facebook, then I would reevaluate your relationship with them. Why give in to Facebook's attempt to take control of the world's communication, especially when we have so many systems that are not controlled by any one party?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Still holding out. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facebook is like most other technologies

      Facebook is a technology now? That is kind of like calling Slashdot a "technology."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Still holding out. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which communication modalities aren't under the control of a monopolist?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC

      you're lucky if you have more than one ISP to choose from.

      Except that the Internet is not controlled by that one ISP, only your connection to it. No matter how you connect to Facebook, it is a communication system that is controlled entirely by one company. That is the difference here.

      Facebook is different in that the large interconnected user base is what creates the barrier to entry.

      No, the fact that Facebook has made no substantial effort at being interoperable with any other system is what creates a barrier to entry.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Still holding out. by houghi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or a /. editor an editor.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  3. Nothing to see? Au contraire by retroworks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's gotta be more. E.g., Do the women really have more trouble with privacy settings - or does Facebook assume so because women inquire about the settings, whereas men won't stop and ask for directions (also explaining why more men fail to change settings to private)?

    --
    Gently reply
  4. Discretion!! by teknx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What ever happened to discretion? People are so quick to post every thought, feeling, and complaint for the world to see. But then also complain about privacy. No one is forcing you to post about what you ate for breakfast and take a picture of it. The trend seems to point to things only getting worse in the future as more companies focus on you being the product and selling your information and habits to 3rd parties. I remember hearing someone say that if the services are free, YOU are the product.

    1. Re:Discretion!! by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember hearing someone say that if the services are free, YOU are the product.

      Yet, you're not paying for using Slashdot. What does that make you?

  5. The flipside of that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Women are more likely to friend people they'll end up unfriending later.

  6. I think it makes men more open and honest. by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you're going to say something say it without caring who hears it or don't say anything at all.

    The above described phenomenon is akin to how women and girls whisper in each others ears, filters are like whispering. The unfriending I see as akin to what I watched a group of girls do in high school. There was about a dozen of them but only 11 could be friends at a time, there was always one girl kicked out of the circle, when she came back they chose another one to be mad at and kicked her out of the circle.

    My guess is the regret men have is regret over how a woman reacted to the picture or other content.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:I think it makes men more open and honest. by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Isn't this pretty much the only reason why men regret anything they say or do?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  7. Re:Really? by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

    ...and GTFO's response was unprintable.

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  8. Surprise, surprise... by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...women are more selective than men regarding who to include in their social circle. I could've predicted this from real-world interactions. Women tend to form close-knit cliques. Men will hang with anyone who will get shitfaced drunk with them and commiserate about their problems with women, work, money, etc.

    1. Re:Surprise, surprise... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or women are less selective, and they add people without thinking about it, and then remove them later when it proves to be a bad idea. You can't tell which it is from the summary, anyway :p

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Social exclusion is a femal strategy by qualityassurancedept · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Female's all over the animal kingdom use social exclusion instead of violence in order to punish other females. Exclusion is the primary competitive strategy for all sorts of female animals. Look it up on Wikipedia. Or google it. Its a widely known fact among researchers in the social science. That's how teenage girls bully each other.

    --
    if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
    1. Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy by jader3rd · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're that mad about it, just punish him by unfriending him and excluding him from your social circle.

    2. Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You didn't even notice that the subject line says "femal", huh?

      While I agree that proper grammar and spelling are something we should strive for, in a web discussion forum "it's the thought that counts". Isn't that the purpose of language -- to convey our thoughts?

      Dismissing someone who may have a worthwhile contribution to the discussion just because they misplaced an apostrophe (or misspelled a word) smacks of elitism. If we measure someone's value by the amount of useful information contributed to the discussion, you're more of a "fuckwit"... by at least an order of magnitude.

    3. Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and never assume malice where incompetence will suffice. You'll get through life with a lot less conflict that way.

    4. Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Female's all over the animal kingdom use social exclusion instead of violence in order to punish other females

      Really?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budgerigar#Breeding_problems

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Social exclusion is a femal strategy by Nimey · · Score: 2

      You have a point, but writing well is a courtesy to one's readers. If a poster writes poorly enough I'll skip over the remainder of his post to save myself pain, and usually I don't miss much anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  10. Re:Nothing to see? Au contraire by gmack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Judging from the differences of what gets posted on my wall, I find that men put up random cool things, pics from something they did with their friends etc while most of the really personal stuff I read such as struggles with life, relationships etc tend to be put up by women. I suspect the gender gap on the privacy settings are simply because woman care more about who reads what they put up.

  11. Who didn't know this by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3

    Women will unfriend someone for wearing the wrong shoes with a skirt, I think men have known this for years.

    1. Re:Who didn't know this by Skapare · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks. Glad to know this. I've always wondered why so few men wear skirts. Now I know.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  12. Re:How about divorce? by roman_mir · · Score: 2

    Oh, and by the way, my conclusion out of all of this is similar to the age old belief, that women come into relationships hoping to change the partner more often (and I believe men come into relationship hoping that the women don't change over time), and both get screwed.

  13. Contradictory observations by Deep+Esophagus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My own experience with Facebook friends isn't nearly so clear-cut. My friends fall into one of four categories: People I know from childhood (school), people I know from work, people I know from church (conservative, evangelical) and people I know from a dialup BBS network in the 80s. Of those four groups, only the BBS nerds are an even mix of men and women; in the other three groups women dominate (heh) by a vast majority.

    And unlike the survey results mentioned in TFS, my female friends tend to be the ones to chatter about personal issues -- daily photos of children and grandchildren doing cute things, updates about their mood or health, etc. The men write about political issues, cars and other "guy toys", restaurants they like, hunting... and some of them only visit Facebook once a month or less.

    So the real news here is... your mileage may vary?

  14. Drama queens by PPH · · Score: 2

    You know the old joke about the definition of a bachelor: A insensitive clod who has deprived some poor woman of a divorce.

    Its actually not that funny. There are some women* (and not a small minority) who seek drama and conflict. Why do you think the plots of daytime soap operas are so bizarre? Well adjusted people stay the hell away from such emotional wreckage. Particularly on a regular basis (something you can experience with the occasional movie but not an ongoing story line). And they tend to seek out the companionship of others suffering from similar woes, rather than attempting to readjust their outlook by associating with undamaged people.

    *OK, some guys too. But if I say 'drama' and 'male', what stereotype comes to mind?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. a few comments by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    > When it comes to privacy, 58 percent of social network users set their profile to private so that only friends can see it.

    This should be 100%. I suspect the other 42% don't know how or don't understand the ramifications. (Mild hyperbole, but you know what I mean.)

    I understand there's problems with Facebook privacy but if you're going to play at all, you have a responsibility to protect yourself. Just my opinion.

    It's also important not to poke "accept" for every friend request you get, without first doing due diligence. If you have one friend in common, that may only mean that your friend may have been stupid enough to click "accept" to a potential social engineer without checking.

    I photograph events and travel, and those albums are open. The rest is closed off. Not because I'm "hiding anything", (this is *facebook*) but because there are things I'd tell my friends that I wouldn't tell the general public. I review my privacy settings periodically. I don't do optional Facebook applications, ever. I don't do Facebook games, ever. I don't repost Facebook "forwards", and I will block someone if that's all they're doing. I have lively discussions (in our own words, not cutting and pasting someone else's) with a circle of friends, we share ideas and have some heated arguments, and that's a good thing -- in my opinion, it's the "social" in social networking. The rest is the electronic equivalent of stuffing an envelope with magazine clippings.

    I believe that women are more likely to unfriend, but I wonder what the statistic is for blocking. I have less than 200 friends, small by Facebook standards, although I've met most of them and about 25% of them would help me move (and 2 or 3 would help me move a body -- although they'd want to know who's first) and of those I've never unfriended someone no matter how obnoxious. I *have* blocked them from my news stream because they're irritating, natter on too much about nothing (a characteristic of Facebook it seems) or repeatedly try to bait the community out of some desire for attention. These "junk" postings get in the way of the people on my friends list whom I *want* to read.

    It doesn't seem right to unfriend. It seems snarky -- a personal insult. Blocking them from my news stream is more like, I haven't taken you out of my address book, but I probably won't be calling you. It would have been interesting to find out if this is a male vs female characteristic. Something like: Given it's time to end the relationship with another person, women are more likely to break up publicly, whereas men are more likely to simply ignore.

    I've noticed repeatedly that a personal friend or acquaintance will jump on, friend everyone in sight, load up a bunch of applications, play a bunch of games, and then suddenly disappear. I've asked some of them later about that, and some have said it takes too much time (I can see that) and others have said they lost interest (reasonable also) but many have said that they became alarmed at the lack of privacy. It's almost like there was an event that shook them up and they dropped out. Social networks are hot right now -- generally accepted -- but I wonder what people's perceptions will be in ten years time.

    Social networks are like any tool -- you can use it to get work done, or you can use it to poke your eye out. If you're not willing to learn the tool, you shouldn't be surprised at the consequences. There is no "walled garden" social network as far as I know. It's like the rest of the internet -- raw, fertile, potentially dangerous. The knife is sharp; it's important to point it in the right direction. But sometimes a spork just won't do.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  16. Groucho by Wildplasser · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't want to be friends with people who have people like me as friends.

  17. That's because women are more emotionally hostile by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at any social group of young teenage girls today. They're the most vile, wretched, undisciplined, emotionally hostile human beings that walk the face of the Earth today. They think nothing of torturing their peers emotionally to the point of suicide.

    Women want their enemies to suffer socially and emotionally.

  18. Re:That's because women are more emotionally hosti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... teenage girls ...

    and the entirety of western civilisation is at their behest and control. Everything we do is to placate and please them. They have ultimate power but no clue what to do with it.

    This is why eastern cultures find western ones so abhorrent. We are without control, worshiping the teenage female form and sacrificing everything in our future for it. I'll have no part of it. It is too late though, we are past the point of no return, this has already effectively destroyed western civilisation. The question is: will any westerners learn from it? I suspect not.

    Environmental contaminants and xenoestrogenics responsible for the recent increases in feminisation of boys? Not so much - while probably part of it - it is clear to me that when faced with such a powerful, hostile and cruel selection of young women to pick from that the solution is obvious.