Facebook has managed to change the meaning of “friend” more within three or four years than the one and a half thousand years the word has existed in English. For some other languages, we can add a few more millenia for the word’s respective counterparts. A friend on Facebook is simply someone you add, provided the other party agrees. However, the breakup is much simpler.

De-friending a Facebook friend is a relatively painless process. It’s easy to do with a click of a link and no explanation is needed. Simply remove them from your friends and it’s done. There is no online equivalent of the awkward breakup dinner; no explanation is needed. If the friendship is low interaction, it may take a while for the other person to find out. For ones where there’s a higher amount of engagement, then the news arrives quicker, especially if one has just commented on your item and Facebook provides followup information. The last part is especially ironic.

I’ve been de-friended by a few people over the past few years. A couple of the “friendships” were low engagement or none at all, so not much was really lost. During a time where I had every tweet automatically sent to my Facebook profile as status updates, I can understand some people getting tired of the Twitter noise. There have been some where I wondered if it was something I said. Having a great deal of curiosity, I want to know why, but I know it’s counterproductive. They made their decision to part digital ways with me, and I have other things to worry about.

I have also dropped a few people from my digital blackbook, AKA Facebook. One person was a mutual “friend” who tried to get me involved in a drama he had with a long-time friend of mine. At first, I tried to be neutral as it was something between him and her, but this so-called mutual friend “wrote” on my “wall” his issues with my real friend (in addition to some rambling e-mails), which was embarrassing. I didn’t want this stuff broadcast to all my friends. I quickly deleted it, but I then decided to delete him too. I can’t say I regret the decision. The one annoying thing that happened was he decided to “steal” one of my friends; that is, go through my list and pick someone. Whatever.

There has only been other person, the accountant at the job that went badly. While he wasn’t responsible for my boss making the workplace a hostile one for me, he was caught in the middle. We were friends before I worked for his company, but the friendship quickly deteriorated. I’ve seen him from time to time, but we never really talked. He then “friended” me on Facebook. It was a low engagement “friendship,” but given our history and that it felt awkward to even say hello to him, I made the decision to “de-friend” him. I don’t hate him or harbor any malice, but he’s not someone I want to be trapped in an elevator with.

Perhaps I should ask myself if I want to be trapped in an elevator with the various people I’m friends with on Facebook, especially the low to no engagement ones. It might just whittle down my list to one of higher engagement and I can interact with with people I truly feel a sense of friendship with. Or, I could interact more with some people, the one of the lower or no engagement. Either option would deal with the quality of friendships, which Facebook never really seems to address. To quote Chumbawamba in a recent song, “Would you like to add me as a friend.”

This morning, I found this lovely newsbit on Twitter: Some coffeehouses in NYC are pulling the plug on laptop users. Then, I had some Twitter conversation with Brian and Kyle* on the issue and then some more reactions on Facebook, as I posted the article link to my “wall.” For the past few years, I have made decisions about which coffee houses I go to based on if they offer WIFI. In fact, I am writing this post from Starbucks, from which I get all the WIFI I want while I’m here. Which brings me to another subject.

WIFI is a perk the cafe owners offer to their customers. Even if it’s a small expense compared to other business-related ones, the owners have gone out of their way to provide something their customers like. Coffeehouses have operated quite fine without laptops or access to the Internet for a long time and they could still continue if they didn’t. One point that Brian brought up is that people have come to feel entitled to having WIFI, like they do many other things. The reality check is that coffee shop are running a business, not a public service. They don’t have to do it.

The public libraries, however, do provide free WIFI as a public service. Perhaps because it frees up computers to be used by patrons who don’t have ones of their own. This facilitates searching the library catalog and Internet research for everyone. Cafes, on the other hand, only have an obligation to serve the best coffee for the buck.

One thing that complicates the simple purpose of the coffee house is that it has a long tradition of being used beyond the simple function of getting a cup of coffee. Many gather to have conversation, whether with friends or the strangers they meet. Others come to do things by their lonesome in a public place, and this is where laptops come in. Many writers like to come in with their notebooks (and now laptops) and scribble away on their Great American Novel. Some published writers have actually done that, even if their work isn’t great nor American nor both. Then there are the people who come in to read a book with a cup of Joe, though a home coffee brewer and a nice arm chair might be adequate for them. Definitely part of being alone but not alone. Then there are the students** who come in and study, by themselves or in groups, and the same go for business people. All of the above often have laptops in their possession.

One could easily point to any or all of the above as part of the coffeehouse tradition. If all one needed is a cup of coffee, one has many options for making one at home, which often has mixed results. However, as previously mentioned, these venues exist for various activities. However, the patrons have some responsibility if they want a place to use their books, journals, or laptops. Perhaps some business owners operate their establishments out of the goodness of their hearts, but most are trying to make money, even if they have a love for coffee. Making the decisions to ban laptops during certain hours or altogether are decisions they made for their business, whether we like it or not. Perhaps the few bad customers are why everyone else suffers. Being a good customer by buying coffee and goodies and being gracious go a long way to helping the cafe owner. Some money’s spent, atmosphere is enhanced, and then using a laptop or some other time consuming device (such as a book) isn’t such a problem. One thing laptop users can do to help everyone else is to not wear out their welcome – keep the visits much shorter and sweeter. Having the owner happy to see you goes a long way.

*Unlike Brian, Kyle doesn’t stay in one digital place for too long. This seems to be a thematic decision for his blogs.
**Some coffeehouses had to deal with students and their effects on their business.

As usual, Mr. Deity smiles and laughs through a blunder he incompetently executed, this one being the venture of Jonah. Proof that prophets need hazard pay.

While I don’t have an official comments policy, ThePete has a policy that covers a lot of the issues that came up with this comment I got in my Perez post last week. ThePete didn’t agree with me and we were cool. However, there was this person, Daniel on Twitter, who felt compelled to leave this long-ass rant. Just to clarify, I don’t follow this Daniel on Twitter, but he piggy-backed on a conversation between me and a mutual friend about Perez’s use of the F word. At one point, he insulted me and I told him to frack off. From there, it felt like one of those night club arguments that seems to be over until the belligerent person confronts you at the door when you leave. With this comment, it was more like being followed to my virtual home. And, being a good host, I posted his comment, even though I thought about just deleting it without it ever seeing the light of day. Ah, but poor Daniel took so much time to type it, and I respect free speech rights.

Given that, I probably should adopt a policy similar to ThePete’s, as it’s pretty reasonable. I also find it irritating when someone tries to piggyback off my posts, which is on my blog. Exercising the right to moderate isn’t a bad thing. I’m not that desperate for comments.

I was tempted to comment on last week’s immense comment, to have fun ripping it apart, but it’s not really worth my time. As for you, Daniel, YOU REALLY NEED TO GET A BLOG. You and all the others like you. It isn’t really that hard as anyone can set one up on Blogger, WordPress, and even MySpace. You can even use Facebook‘s Notes application, which is pretty much for people who pretend to have a blog. Try it and rant to your wounded heart’s content.