To think Facebook 'marking yourself safe' option is overused?

[iismum]

Sure, it's fantastic if, for example, you were at the Ariane Grande concert or it you spend a lot of time in the vicinity of London Bridge and there was a real chance you might have got caught up in the terror attacks and people would genuinely worry. But I feel like people obsessively marking themselves safe just because they live within 20 miles of the event when there was practically no chance they were involved just feeds the general hysteria and makes people feel that no one is safe.

To be honest, I was not beside myself worrying if my friend in leafy south-west London who probably crosses London Bridge twice a year was safe. What happened is horrendous, but 6 people died. Practically everyone in London is safe. I feel like people's need to mark themselves safe is increasing the impact of these attacks when we should be trying to do the opposite.

I've been torn on this. For people who never visit London, or barely leave their quiet, rural village, yanbu. All it does is focus attention wrongly on the person who was not there.

However, I have a friend who lives in London and another who regularly visits for work and social occasions. Seeing them mark themselves as safe is reassuring and probably stops them getting 101 texts/calls asking that very question.

But we can't police how people use these functions so I guess all we can do is sigh and point out to some people that they would never have been unsafe as they were nowhere near the situation.

I live in London but theoretically not close enough to what happened yesterday evening to bother marking myself safe via FB. BUT you just never know who will be where, and as I live only a 25 minutes Tube journey away it is entirely possible I might have been there. BIL, it transpires, was in a pub in Borough (even though they live in leafy Surrey) watching the match but left before the terror attack events kicked off.

You would be surprised at how often even 'out-of-towners' who don't work in London will be there for some random reason.

So I'm assuming you aren't a Londoner, OP?

I get what you mean but a lot of people who haven't been to London don't know just how big it is. Of course if they have a relative or friend in London they're going to panic.

"'Doesn't apply' lets people know all is well. But like I said upthread, it is less attention grabbing and dramatic...." actually no it doesn't. Doesn't apply just removes your name from the list when you click on the people in the area but doesn't send out any kind of notification like marked safe does.

Though I do think the "Jenny, 30 miles away is offering clotted for one person" and "Michael 15 miles away is offering type O blood" are

London is a tourist city.
It is also a very large city
If you live in Redbridge you may well visit the inner city for working, socialising and shopping.

I am therefore grateful for the FB facility. Any number of my friends could have decided to pop into town and some of them live close by to the most recent incidents.

I wish my DS1 had bloody used it. That way I wouldn't have had to try and get hold of him this morning.

One of the things I hate most about these terrible attacks, apart from the obvious horror at the actual event, is the slew of threads with OPs desperately trying to find a new angle on what happened.
MN is full of them at the moment and this is one of them.

Facebook has prompted me twice, both London attacks. I'm about an hour and a half way from London Bridge, go to or through London fairly often. The Westminster attack I ignored the "check in" prompt completely, and this morning I clicked on "does not apply".

After the Westminster attack a friend (who lives about 3 hours train ride away from London and never ever goes there) checked herself as safe, despite never being there. So I'm a bit on the fence

YABU
I live abroad and have lots of friends and family in and around London and working in London and I've been worried sick all day. My best friend for example lives and works in London and hadn't replied to my WhatsApp messages. Turns out she's abroad for the weekend but I have no way of knowing whether my friends and family were tucked up in bed or out on the town and therefore being able to see people checking themselves in as safe is very reassuring. I think it's a great tool.

I was pleased to hear all my friends who live in London were safe. They all live in different parts of London but they often go for a night out, one lives a way out of the centre but often goes to the restaurant involved.

I guess it saves people having to individually reassure everyone they are safe.

The thing is Most people don't live in London, people say things like 'this underground line doesn't go here' or stuff like that which may be common knowledge to Londoners but frankly I needed the BBC map of the area to see where the attacks took place and their proximity to each other. I guess if an attack took place in the city I live in people who don't live there wouldn't be expected to know that X road isn't anywhere near Y Square.

Obviously if you live in Wick and never leave there is no need to mark yourself safe.

I think YANBU at all, OP. To me, it's another online tool for people who were not in harm's way to get the attention that they crave.

Quite honestly, I can't imagine that anybody who is actually close to somebody who would have been at risk, wouldn't have been told that their loved one is safe.

Perhaps it's the term 'loved one' that's morphed into 'somebody I vaguely might know' and that's where the confusion lies?

I've got a friend who lives in the area. I knew he was OK as he's posting on FB about his holiday in Thailand but it would have been useful if he hadn't.

I live in London but a different part. Apart from an occasional trip to Borough Market, or maybe changing trains at London Bridge, (which as I'm a North Londoner who works in East London is not an everyday occurrence) I'm unlikely to be in the area. I didn't mark myself as safe but for any cousins in America who don't know London I think the fact I was posting about it at the time was reassurance I was OK.

YANBU. My mate from Surrey who never leaves her town due to "pollution" marked herself as "safe" on Facebook too.

Quite honestly, I can't imagine that anybody who is actually close to somebody who would have been at risk, wouldn't have been told that their loved one is safe

Really?
If my eldest son or one of my many nieces and nephews were caught up in a major incident why do you think I would find out quickly that they were safe or not?

There is chaos after a major incident. Put in bluntly, you cant always tell which limb belongs to who let alone what their name is.

It cant take days to find out who has been involved.

I have friends in Paris. I was glad when they used facebook to tell us they were safe after the Paris attacks. It's impossible to know everyone's whereabouts at any given point in time. They could easily have been at the Bataclan or just as easily been camping in the mountains that night. No-one is au fait with everyone's social calendar and its last minute alterations. Your assumption that because someone lives elsewhere then they wouldn't have to declare themselves safe, seems odd.Someone from Yorkshire could have been in London for the weekend.

This is true. I didn't go on FB, mum didn't know where I was (I'm an adult!) so she text me. I don't tell my relatives my every move. Do you?

I was prompted to mark myself safe today and clicked "does not apply". I do go to London sometimes and was there relatively recently so it's not unreasonable for someone to ask. The feature allows people to ask each other to check in, so in that case if someone checks on me the system will return "does not apply".

YANBU. Facebook implements it as a data gathering exercise.

[citation needed]

I will agree that it's activated very quickly now though. It was originally for geographically bigger events such as earthquakes, particularly where communications are affected, so people can make one click to notify lots of people rather than trying to make lots of phone calls or send lots of texts when the networks are overwhelmed.

I sort of know what you mean. But so many of my friends are based in and around London and Borough Market is exactly the sort of place they (and us pre-DS) would be on a Saturday night. I had no specific reason to worry about any of them but was pleased to see the ones who had marked as safe on DH's Facebook (I'm still a refusenik!).

Quite honestly, I can't imagine that anybody who is actually close to somebody who would have been at risk, wouldn't have been told that their loved one is safe

As Mrs DV says - my cousin worked in place that was subject to a major terrorist attack - it took us two days to find out that he was safe. Communications are often disrupted after terror attacks.

It's the offers of blood donation that are getting on my nerves. I know it comes from a good place (mostly, although the cynic in me says it's a way to get in on the action) but posting 'in A-, happy to donate blood to any victims who need it' is not helpful. That's not how blood donation works- you don't wait to be called up on Facebook then trot along to the relevant hospital to donate directly to 'the victim'. Just go and donate quietly in the week or something to help replenish supplies.

YABU, my best friend lives in the leafy suburbs of London but I knew she was in town last night. I was worried for her. Phone lines don't always work so it's an easy way to let people know you're ok.

Facebook flags the feature to anyone in the radius.

YANBU I live in central Scotland and a girl who lives two streets away from me and is currently not in London marked herself safe

MrsDV and KurriKurri, that's kind of my point. You might not have known if they had been injured in an incident but, if they are able to mark themselves as 'safe' on a FB register then they can surely ring you to tell you that they're fine.