Maybe we need the dinner party equivalent of Chatham House Rules(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule)for dinner parties.

I would have been sorely tempted to mention something to Elaine about it.

"...he seems important...if I tweet about him, I'll seem important!"

Bingo.

Twitter is designed to appeal to chattering teenage girls. Or anyone with that level of maturity.

The person sending the tweets is the twitterer, and he is clearly of the teenage-girl type. The people receiving the tweets are twits, and one wonders why they have nothing better to do in life than listen to random bits of gossip from someone else's dinner party. They clearly have no lives of their own.

The new slogal: don't be a twit.

@Ms. Alkon: "...many people with these wireless binkies are essentially chimps with nukes."

Chimps with nukes! Oh, I do like that line!

Not to mention, twittering or texting all through a dinner party seems to me a lot like yakking on your phone all through a dinner party -- the kind of thing that ought to keep you from being invited to more dinner parties.

Amy,
Wait a second.
Aren't you the person who posts pictures of rude and noisy people on your blog?
Or the random person who cut you off one day (maybe he double-parked you, I forget)?
Or the information of the guy who sent you a nasty e-mail?
I do not have time to peruse your entire site for the exact entries (these just came to mind), but you make a habit of outing stupid (or rude) people on your blog.
How does that reconcile with your expectation of privacy argument? I am sure the jerks who woke you up late at night were not looking for their faces to be on your blog.
-Jut

Looking at the bright side, LW now knows whom not to invite to any party he gives, and if the offended uncouth jackass wants to know why, LW should by all means tell him.

Jut, it's one thing to expose someone who's being an ass directly in front of you and quite another to tweet about someone who doesn't know you're doing so until (way) after the fact. Are you really that dense? Anyone who voilates my space will get called on it, right then, just as Amy does. They give up any right to privacy when they violate mine. Get it now?

Take it easy, Flynne? I'm not picking a side in the discussion, but I thought JutGory's question was valid and I didn't get a snotty vibe from the post (which evidently you did). Just sayin'.

I have to say, Amy, normally I am behind what you say 100%, and find your assessment of situations brilliantly insightful. Not this time though. Are you saying that if someone attends a social function, they are somehow bound by "right of privacy" to never reveal who they were out with? How does that even make sense?

"Hey, where were you last night?"

"I went out to dinner, but I must never reveal who with, for they might be offended!"

Honestly, that seems like paranoia, and an unrealistic expectation of others. It doesn't sound like these twitterers expressed more than who they were out with, which is hardly revealing information. And they don't sound like they were specifically asked to keep the LW's presence a secret, so where does this imagined "right of privacy" come from?

so where does this imagined "right of privacy" come from?

You just made it up.

Sorry, Mizireni. I didn't mean to convey a snotty vibe myself, but I guess it did kinda come out that way. Mea culpa, Jut. Anyhoo, the gist of it is, the guy who tweeted about the other guy's presence at the dinner party was using that to make himself look, I dunno, better? more important? to someone else at the first diner's expense. And the guy is someone who "actually tried to get [him] fired". I wouldn't want the guy tweeting about me either. He most certainly violated the guy's privacy to promote himself falsely. Not cool.

"Are you saying that if someone attends a social function, they are somehow bound by "right of privacy" to never reveal who they were out with? How does that even make sense?"

Jason,
Amy explicity covered this.

"Sure, assume people might tell a friend or two something you said, but nobody has the right to release your whereabouts and dinner conversation to your friends, enemies, and five utter strangers who now get mobile broadband on their houseboat in Belarus."

There is a difference between discussing your dinner pertner with a friend during a conversation and tweeting/blogging about it.

Amy,
Sorry for stunning you.
But, first things first. No, I have never been on Dr. Phil. I was turned onto your site by Glenn Sacks, if that tells you anything. Daily lurker; infrequent commenter.
No, I am not mean to waitresses. I try to say my "pleases" and "thank yous" and "excuse mes." If they bring me the wrong thing (or forget a special request), I do not make a big deal out of it (as long as I would otherwise eat what they brought and I do not get charged more). Most of these things are not worth getting worked up over and you should always strive to be polite and courteous to strangers. Sometimes, that is hard, especially on the internet, eh, Flynne? So, to that extent, I agree with you.
I also try to take my cell phone calls privately. I am a lawyer, so I try to make myself available whenever I am needed, or if my mom calls (you always answer when your parents call).
But, being a lawyer may also explain my "dense-ness," as Flynne might put it, and my inability to engage in the most rudimentary form of reasoning. Studying philosophy did not help either.
But a private person, at a private dinner, in a PUBLIC place has a much lower expectation of privacy than a private person, in a private dinner, in a private place. Face it, you walk out the door, you are in public. Now, most of us do not have to worry about attracting attention. I try not to impose myself on others any more than necessary. However, I find the LW to be a bit over-sensitive.
I met a guy at a bar a few weeks ago; he said he knew my business partners. I mentioned this to my partner a few days later. I do not think: 1) this guy violated my partner's privacy by recounting the two times they met to talk shop; or 2) that I violated this guy's privacy by mentioning to my partner that I had run into him. Tweeting is simply this example, writ large.
To that extent, my earlier comments were not quite analogous. I can see how the noisy people "steal" your time; I do not agree with you on that concept (it is the price to be paid for not being a hermit), but I understand your argument. But, I do not see that the LW's time was stolen because someone she knew had "heard" she was at a dinner party.
-Jut

Just read the updates.
No offense taken, Flynne. Okay, I was a little perturbed at first, but no big deal. :)
-Jut

Tweeting is simply this example, writ large.

The significant difference is that the tweeter has very limited control over the representation, reformatting, and persistence of their message.

In your example, you're relating a meeting to a mutual acquaintance and you had the ability to qualify and condition the communication of this information. But if the 'guy' reasonable suspected that you were going to submit the date and time of his presence in a bar to a service that would then repackage this information for public dissemination, and permanent archiving, it's likely that he would have laid out some conditions on what you should relate to others, or he would have avoided you entirely.

Well... maybe I'm just paranoid, but couldn't tweeting someone's location potentially be harmful? I mean, gee, thanks for telling everyone that I'M NOT HOME (so come rob me). There's a reason they tell you not to publish home addresses in obituary columns, and it falls along the same lines.

Amy,

Right on the money. The twit had no business advertising private party info live to whomever may see.

The examples you make of people being rude in public is a whole other animal, as well as rude emailers.

I was ignoring annoying traffic on my blog for a while, but the pest started crawling over it from work. So the traffic from September, October and December got posted in December and retroactively on Nov. 1, with links back to the sources of the traffic. Pestering people from work is a bad idea.

I LOVE the passion in this thread! It's kinda new ground, but rooted in the basics of privacy and courtesy. I'm with the ginger chick in that this is more about respect for others' social rights.

Since we're social animals, our electronic binkies tied to social networking sutes allow us to feel more important, get near immediate gratification that we matter, make us feel like we're part of something bigger than ourselves, and satisfy the primate need for grooming. That's the positive side (unless taken to extremes...like the teens of friends who rack up 3,000+ txts a month or courtroom texting...you get the idea!).

I agree with all about the right to privacy but also hold the host(ess) more accountable. What's wrong with having everyone stow their binkies during the dinner and interacting face-to-face? Outside of every meeting room where I work, we put up boxes where all the handhelds can play together while the grown-ups have their meeting without distractions (we called them "blackberry preserves"). In a private setting, it's up to the host(ess) to create the environment of confidentiality and conviviality. In public or semi-public, it's something the group agrees on and enforces.

Unless there's some crisis looming or you're a doctor or some other professional on call, there's so little that's urgent enough to require an immediate response. Let it wait, be part of the group, enjoy the company of the people you're there with.

There's definitely legal precedent for the privacy issues at play here...but who wants/needs to sue people just for being self-absorbed jerks who gossiped about you? Until the social mores catch up with the fact that it's uncool to gossip in this new way (or penalties abound), it's up to all of us with a conscience to help that along.

Happy holidaze to y'all. *

Flynne and Amy, you both overreacted. Jut's question, although the two of you thought the answer should be obvious, was in no way couched in cagey, disingenuous terms, nor did he imply anything. It was phrased in completely innocuous terms, and the two of you assumed bad faith. He asked how you reconcile it, not "Why are you such a hypocrite?" Had he actually said the latter, I would have been all for your going in with guns blazing, and would have joined in myself. But I see nothing in his question to assume a personal attack. Maybe he really doesn't know and wanted to understand.

I myself wasn't able to intellectualize the answer, even though unconsciously I did understand the difference, and see nothing wrong with exposing a public rudester in a public forum, while seeing plenty wrong with Tweeting a semi-celebrity's whereabouts for the purpose of cyber-name-dropping.

The Goddess writes: My boyfriend, the best person I know, is the antithesis of chatty, and his idea of a great party is one that's cancelled, so he doesn't have to go talk to anyone (and yes, it's okay with him that I post this bit of info). I don't apply my standards to him; I try to avoid taking him to parties that would make him unhappy, and go by myself. I'm happiest knowing he isn't sitting on the couch somewhere wanting to leave, and that he's on his own couch, placidly reading about Stalin and listening to Penderecki or watching Ice Road Truckers on the History Channel.

I always love it when you mention this about your boyfriend. He sounds so much like me in that respect that I have to laugh.

Like sexuality, introversion and extroversion aren't neat compartments into which everyone can be placed. It's more of a spectrum and most people find themselves somewhere between the two extremes. But in my case, with absolute introversion being a zero and total extroversion being a 10, I'm probably a -1.

Socializing to me is draining. To an extrovert, it's rejuvenating. And even if it's someone I know well, I have my limits. During a phone conversation, there are times when I simply cannot take the chatter any more. Either I've got all the intellectual stimulation I need at the moment, or my emotional energy needed to sustain conversation was spent earlier that day. Another possibility is that I'm just tired. And it doesn't matter how much I love you or adore you, I have my limits for all people, although my loved ones get more allowances than a stranger trying to chat me up.

Now, I know from experience some of you are thinking, "It doesn't have to be that way." I get that a lot. But think about it for a second. You're assuming that there's something wrong with me, and that it can be fixed. There isn't and it can't. It's the exact same mentality of those who think gays can be fixed. Assuming that there's something wrong with it, and that it has to be changed. Again, there isn't and it can't.

I think introverts have an undeservedly bad reputation (reinforced by types like a Unabomber), while extroverts, because they're in the majority, have an undeservedly good reputation. I see introversion as more of self-containment and independence. I can keep myself entertained with my own thoughts, a good book, a nice informative T.V. show, etc. and see no need to strike up small talk, which is a polite word for pointless chatter. Extroverts, by contrast, can only restore their vital spiritual energies by leeching it from other people.

I realize he doesn't post here, but I wonder what Gregg would say about this. I'd wager he feels the same way I do.

Interesting point Patrick. I'm known among my friends and family for never shutting up and most would describe me as an extrovert, and yet the energy required to socialise is terribly draining - as much as I do enjoy it, sometimes I have to force myself to go out, usually because I've made a promise. The few people who know me really well know that I need a lot of quiet alone time to recharge in between. The ability to constantly socialise or even the need for people around me at all most of the time is totally foreign to me.

I push myself a lot out of politeness and respect for others, but sometimes I just have to tell people "Sorry, I can't do this anymore - it's not you, it's me".

So the division between introvert and extrovert is even more complicated than you suggest, perhaps a 2D map rather than a straight line.

Ltw, that's really interesting because I can relate. I don't mean to say that I never, never, never go out. I do but it's rare. I think the occasional urge occurs because I haven't done much earlier that week that's terribly taxing socially, so I have the "spiritual energies" to spare.

I don't drink at all, but I have tried it in the past. It doesn't loosen me up at all. On the contrary, it makes me more reserved than ever. I'm reminded of Bill Cosby's famous rhetorical question about cocaine, "It intensifies your personality." "Yes, but what if you're an asshole?"

(Which was the only instance of profanity in that entire routine.) Not that I'm suggesting that introverts are assholes, but if I'm any indication, alcohol makes an introvert even more introverted.

It amazes me that some of the people commenting on this site have attack JutGory for making a logical comment. Yes I know most people are more emotional then logical. But we should all be able to read a comment, and ask questions if we don't understand without starting to calling people out, or fight because we missunderstand, that is what I consider to be rude.

going with the tangent topic, here's a link to a great article about introverts:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch

and Ltw, sounds like you're what is known as a "gregarious introvert." life of the party, funny, vivacious when you are up for it and then requiring alone time for recovery?

I agree on the alcohol thing Patrick, it just intensifies or exposes your personality - I've been a very heavy drinker for 15 years (what the hell, I'll just say alcoholic) - until last week that is, and let me tell you detox at home is hell even with a very supportive ex-gf cooking meals and looking after you - and no one except my partners (because they get neglected for the addiction and you're generally useless) has ever noticed much of a difference between me sober or drunk. My base personality is mostly open and pleasant and all that happened is I got a bit louder and lost some of my capacity for judgement. But my personality didn't change a lot.

But I've known a couple of really mean drunks, mostly weekend bender types, who didn't seem like that sober. Took me a while and talking to some of their exes to realise that their superficial 'friend' personality was a sham and they were just pricks at heart - to their partners sober and to everyone drunk. "In vino veritas" rings truer to me than "it was the alcohol talking".

Maybe for people who are shy or uptight it would work to help them relax and open up a bit, but that's a different thing to being an introvert as you pointed out. Introversion is not a dislike or fear of other people or something that needs to be fixed, you just don't need other people to be happy.

Trixie - good description! And if you try and go out during the recovery period everyone asks what's wrong...

Man, did this one hit home. I find it ironic that these tools of "hyper communication" may only serve to motivate us to become more socially withdrawn (instead of more "connected") because of instances such as this. I avoided dating quite a few girls who see it fit to document and display every bit of their whereabouts on Livejournal and Facebook.

Nicely done on this one, Amy.

I agree with Ian, in that, documenting and displaying every bit of whereabouts on social websites such as Facebook has a certain "ewww factor" to it. That, along with the 3rd party privacy issues of sites like that... i'd rather keep my privacy, thank you.

I don't even see the point of twitter. It's OK to be alone; and every thought, probably most thoughts, are better left unspoken.

....couldn't have said it better, MarkD. Thanks! And Happy New Year, everyone!

I am young, relatively speaking. Most people my age know Twitter for what it is essentially useful for: selling shit and promoting your "brand". Whether that's your celebrity, your jeans, your movies or your tunes. Anyone else that uses it for brief blurbs about the minutiae of their mundane existence is what my 70-year-old mom would call, a bore. (It's really no different than you hawking your book on the internet, Amy. You can't pick and choose which social media violates your expectations and which ones you want to manipulate for profit.) Whether the old fogies of this world want to realize it or not, there is no expectation of privacy in public or anywhere outside of your own home. If you were at a dinner party in someone's home then you WERE at a public get together in a private home. The world wide web is the new wild wild west. Sure, you went to a private dinner party, and you were probably photographed 50 times on the way there by your own government unbeknownst to you. The letter writer reminds me of the aging hippy who now votes Republican banging his cane on his rocking chair yelling at those whipper-snappers to get off his lawn! This is the way it is now folks. Get used to ti, cuz it ain't gonna change. Stop whining and stay home.

Wow,Rosemary. I hope you're wrong! (and really, how young ARE you with a 70 yr old mother?)

I think some of the comments on this thread show how much Amy's next book is needed.

quand j'étais à la recherche de yahoo juste pour cette question, je pense que ses pas de solution pour moi, mais Dieu merci, votre article me sauver de cet article!