| ▲ | lapcat an hour ago | ||||||||||||||||
> We did, and yet people did still often just come over unannounced, to the point that it that the unannounced visit - which was common enough to be believable, but not always welcome The question is, what exactly is the relevance of mobile vs. non-mobile phones? I think it really depends on the walking distance. If someone is your neighbor, there's not a lot of effort saved from calling or texting first. Going back to the OP, these are two very different things: "you can just text them… or not even bother and check their socials to see what impression of a life they’re presenting today." As far as one-to-one communication is concerned, a landland call is just as good as a mobile call or a text. But social media addiction is an entirely different matter. That's not even about announced vs. unannounced visits but rather about living in the real world vs. living in a virtual world. > was a frequent plot point in various media. I'm not sure that citing fiction is useful. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | vidarh an hour ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
I explained the relevance of mobile phones to you. People are not always at home. Without a mobile phone you had an excuse. Now you don't really. It doesn't even matter whether or not you were actually home - there was less of a social expectation to always call because it was a recognised excuse that you "were in the neighborhood" and implicitly had no way to check without dropping by. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||