Rude to post on FB about wedding when close family isn't invited?

[padua]

several posters are comparing facebook to a conversation, which helps me understand why my opinion differs. i just don't consider it in the same genre. i compare facebook more to a blog than to a conversation. after all, viewing someone's facebook page is a choice. i don't think someone who posts something on their facebook page would necessarily bring up an event in company where only some participants were invited. most of my facebook submissions are random streams of thought that aren't intentionally directed at any of my friends/family specifically. my friends are such an eclectic group of individuals, i'd never find something to interest ALL of them.

this is probably why i don't/can't see it as rude. although i can certainly understand the views of those who do see facebook as a substitute for dialog.

[MrsJWine]

I think the closest analog to Facebook is having a conversation at a party that you've thrown. But it's still not exactly the same thing. And I don't think it's rude to talk about your tiny wedding in front of people you would likely invite if you had a large wedding. It would be rude to talk about your tiny wedding if everyone in the room was immediate family, and only one person weren't invited. But otherwise, no.

[MacadamiaNut]

In terms of facebook, I also think it depends on who is on your friends list.  While it's hard to make sure nobody is offended, it's also important to note that there may be people who are in fact offended.  And I don't care the reasons... if there are people who would be offended by mention of something they were not invited to "that they think they should have been invited to", those people will be hurt.  It is probably important to take that into consideration before posting something... unless of course, you don't give a flying fig about what their feelings are.  In that case, post away!  and I will add, if they are just random people from the past, then it matters less, of course, but why post, "I just sent out the invites!"  Why do this?  I guess I just don't get it but that is only because I am not one of those types of facebook posters in that I don't post much about what I'm doing.  Please don't think that I think there is anything wrong with posting everything you're doing.  I just think you have to be aware that not everybody cares and worse, some will be offended.

[WillyNilly]

several posters are comparing facebook to a conversation, which helps me understand why my opinion differs. i just don't consider it in the same genre. i compare facebook more to a blog than to a conversation. after all, viewing someone's facebook page is a choice. i don't think someone who posts something on their facebook page would necessarily bring up an event in company where only some participants were invited. most of my facebook submissions are random streams of thought that aren't intentionally directed at any of my friends/family specifically. my friends are such an eclectic group of individuals, i'd never find something to interest ALL of them.

this is probably why i don't/can't see it as rude. although i can certainly understand the views of those who do see facebook as a substitute for dialog.

See I don't understand that.  A blog I have to seek out - I have to specifically go to that person's blog. If a person posts something I won't see it unless I make the effort to seek it out. 

But on Facebook if a FB friend posts something on their wall it shows up in my stream on my page by default.  I don't do anything to seek it out, its just there in my face.  In fact I have to make an effort to not see it.  I straight up don't understand your statement "viewing someone's facebook page is a choice" - its a default more then a choice if they are on your friends list.  You have to choose to not see it, otherwise everything a person posts on their page shows up on their friend's stream.

Which is why to me, its more like party conversation.  Sure it might not be said directly to me, but its being put out there in a way to catch the attention of any and all to invite them into the conversation, whereas a blog is more like a private conversation at a restaurant table - its not open to all in the room, its only open to those who sit down at the table.

[padua]

several posters are comparing facebook to a conversation, which helps me understand why my opinion differs. i just don't consider it in the same genre. i compare facebook more to a blog than to a conversation. after all, viewing someone's facebook page is a choice. i don't think someone who posts something on their facebook page would necessarily bring up an event in company where only some participants were invited. most of my facebook submissions are random streams of thought that aren't intentionally directed at any of my friends/family specifically. my friends are such an eclectic group of individuals, i'd never find something to interest ALL of them.

this is probably why i don't/can't see it as rude. although i can certainly understand the views of those who do see facebook as a substitute for dialog.

See I don't understand that.  A blog I have to seek out - I have to specifically go to that person's blog. If a person posts something I won't see it unless I make the effort to seek it out. 

But on Facebook if a FB friend posts something on their wall it shows up in my stream on my page by default.  I don't do anything to seek it out, its just there in my face.  In fact I have to make an effort to not see it.  I straight up don't understand your statement "viewing someone's facebook page is a choice" - its a default more then a choice if they are on your friends list.  You have to choose to not see it, otherwise everything a person posts on their page shows up on their friend's stream.

Which is why to me, its more like party conversation.  Sure it might not be said directly to me, but its being put out there in a way to catch the attention of any and all to invite them into the conversation, whereas a blog is more like a private conversation at a restaurant table - its not open to all in the room, its only open to those who sit down at the table.

ah. what i meant was, we can choose who we subscribe to. we can even block specific feeds. like the OP, we can remove ourselves from viewing content that may offend us, once we get an idea of how that individual will post. in my opinion, it's easier to block someone's feed or defriend him/her than it is to get away from a dinner table when a distasteful conversation comes up.

[bah12]

I think in basic terms, it's just unrealistic to expect to never hear about anything you're not invited to whether that be in conversation or on Facebook.  And the rule isn't that. 

The rule should really be reserved in those cases where there is a reasonable expectation of attendance and a specific exclusion.  Like if I was throwing a party for my work collegues and invited all but one.  That one person would have a reasonable expectation that he would be invited to a work event I'm throwing and it's a specific exclusion, becasue I'm inviting everyone but him. 

Just the other day, I went out with a group of friends.  Two of the women were telling me about a hike they went on the week before and about another one they were planning for the following weekend.  DH and I talked about a daytrip we are planning this coming weekend.   I don't think any of us were rude in those conversations even though we were discussing events that not all of us were mutually invited to or included in.  As a matter of fact, that particular night, our neighbors (who also happen to be friends) watched DD for us so we could go out.  Should we not have told them that we were hanging out with friends since they weren't invited to that outing?

For this particular wedding, no, I don't think posting about it is rude.  I see postings of weddings all the time on FB that I'm not invited to.  People should be able to talk about these things, even outside of FB.  This particular wedding includes immediate family only.  The OP does not fit in that category.  She shouldn't have a reasonable expectation to attend a wedding of extended family, when extended family is not included.  Nor is she specifically excluded in that all extended family has been left off the guest list, not just her. 

I also don't think it's rude for her to hide the feeds if it's hurtful.  Feeling hurt is reasonable and removing the hurt from her feed is reasonable.  Expecting her neice to never mention the wedding, is not reasonable.

[WillyNilly]

several posters are comparing facebook to a conversation, which helps me understand why my opinion differs. i just don't consider it in the same genre. i compare facebook more to a blog than to a conversation. after all, viewing someone's facebook page is a choice. i don't think someone who posts something on their facebook page would necessarily bring up an event in company where only some participants were invited. most of my facebook submissions are random streams of thought that aren't intentionally directed at any of my friends/family specifically. my friends are such an eclectic group of individuals, i'd never find something to interest ALL of them.

this is probably why i don't/can't see it as rude. although i can certainly understand the views of those who do see facebook as a substitute for dialog.

See I don't understand that.  A blog I have to seek out - I have to specifically go to that person's blog. If a person posts something I won't see it unless I make the effort to seek it out. 

But on Facebook if a FB friend posts something on their wall it shows up in my stream on my page by default.  I don't do anything to seek it out, its just there in my face.  In fact I have to make an effort to not see it.  I straight up don't understand your statement "viewing someone's facebook page is a choice" - its a default more then a choice if they are on your friends list.  You have to choose to not see it, otherwise everything a person posts on their page shows up on their friend's stream.

Which is why to me, its more like party conversation.  Sure it might not be said directly to me, but its being put out there in a way to catch the attention of any and all to invite them into the conversation, whereas a blog is more like a private conversation at a restaurant table - its not open to all in the room, its only open to those who sit down at the table.

ah. what i meant was, we can choose who we subscribe to. we can even block specific feeds. like the OP, we can remove ourselves from viewing content that may offend us, once we get an idea of how that individual will post. in my opinion, it's easier to block someone's feed or defriend him/her than it is to get away from a dinner table when a distasteful conversation comes up.

But here's the thing with blocking a feed - it blocks it all.  So the OP doesn't want to see wedding updates, because she's not invited to the wedding, so she blocks her niece's feed... but that means the OP also doesn't see any of the niece's other posts.  The ones where maybe she mentions she won an award at work, or is going to a concert who else wants to go, or the funny joke, or the photo of her new kitten or whatever.  As far as I know editing out posts on FB requires a heavy hand - its all or none.  One can't just close out one or two annoying posts from a person, one either hides all updates from a person or no posts from a person.  We cannot selectively "remove ourselves from viewing content that may offend us" we can can only remove ourselves from completely from seeing a person's every last post on the chance that a few of those posts might offend (or hurt, as the case of this thread) us even if the majority do not.  We cannot simply edit out the few offensive ones.

Its much easier for people to self edit their posting to follow already established social etiquette.  And the long established etiquette is that its impolite to discuss a party publicly in front of those who are not invited. 

Facebook by very definition is social media.  It is not a personal diary, or a editorial column or a blog.  It is social, so to me, long established social rules apply.

...This particular wedding includes immediate family only.  The OP does not fit in that category.  She shouldn't have a reasonable expectation to attend a wedding of extended family, when extended family is not included...

Well that's not entirely true.  The OP has mentioned some extended relatives are in fact invited, in fact at another family function one such extended family member even brought up the niece's wedding (mentioned on the thread in Life in General).  The OP also has mentioned she hasn't asked her siblings if they are invited or not specifically because she doesn't want to either be hurt herself finding out they are, or hurt the sibling by bringing up the topic.  The OP only knows she was told she's not being invited due to it being a small wedding.

And really now who even does that?  Who tells someone "oh by the way you're not invited to my wedding" unless there was a reasonable expectation that person would be invited?  I mean hey, you all, Ehellions, you're not invited to my wedding. Pretty pointless announcement, right?  Of course, because none of you expect to be invited.  But the OP was told she's not invited specifically because there was a reasonable expectation of her being invited.

[iradney]

I think this depends on the frequency of the updates. If BTB is posting incessently with "ZOMG chose colours today!" "Chose flowers, I just adore daisies!" etc, then I would consider that rude. But I would consider constant updates on a singular subject for an extended time period to be rude anyway.

If BTB has made one or two posts, then I fail to see how it's rude, as that's the kind of thing that would happen in normal conversation. "Hey, how are you, I'm good, work was pretty awesome, I found these shoes on sale, I was thinking of using a similar style for my wedding, I found a great BBQ sauce recipe" etc.

[bah12]

...This particular wedding includes immediate family only.  The OP does not fit in that category.  She shouldn't have a reasonable expectation to attend a wedding of extended family, when extended family is not included...

Well that's not entirely true.  The OP has mentioned some extended relatives are in fact invited, in fact at another family function one such extended family member even brought up the niece's wedding (mentioned on the thread in Life in General).  The OP also has mentioned she hasn't asked her siblings if they are invited or not specifically because she doesn't want to either be hurt herself finding out they are, or hurt the sibling by bringing up the topic.  The OP only knows she was told she's not being invited due to it being a small wedding.

And really now who even does that?  Who tells someone "oh by the way you're not invited to my wedding" unless there was a reasonable expectation that person would be invited?  I mean hey, you all, Ehellions, you're not invited to my wedding. Pretty pointless announcement, right?  Of course, because none of you expect to be invited.  But the OP was told she's not invited specifically because there was a reasonable expectation of her being invited.

Yes, I read that.  She also said those family members were invited because they through an SS fit to get invited.  I don't think caving to over the top demands from extended relatives means anything in terms of level of closeness.  Nor do I think that because the bride and groom caved to that relative are they required to invite everyone else.

I imagine that the OP was told about the "immediate family only" wedding, because, as she said, it is normal within their family to include everyone.  But, seeing how this event also includes a separate family with possibly separate wants and needs, and the neice and her fiance are choosing to have a smaller wedding, that she is told up front...so that ther reasonable expetation is therefore removed.

"Cousin Susie is having a small wedding and inviting only immediate family".  To me, that shows a great deal of respect for the OP.  To let her know up front that Susie is not following in line with all the other huge family weddings that they are accustomed to.  She wasn't left guessing.  I think that's a good thing.

I stand by that it's unrealistic to expect to never talk about anything unless everyone is invited.  I would never have anything to talk about if that were the case.  And it would take the "Do you have plans this weekend?" question right into rude territory, because now, you would hypothetically be forcing someone to be rude and tell you about something you aren't included in or force them to invite you along so they can tell you.   

Again, we aren't talking about specific exclusion...that is completely different.

[SisJackson]

Facebook by very definition is social media.  It is not a personal diary, or a editorial column or a blog.  It is social, so to me, long established social rules apply.

You may choose to apply those rules but there are a lot of people who do not, and in my opinion, are using Facebook entirely correctly for them.

For instance, one of my good friends does not allow anyone to post to her wall, and up until a recent FB update, did not allow her friends to comment on any posts - the new settings don't permit a user to restrict comments, apparently - so now she deletes all comments as soon as she sees them.  She sees her Facebook not as a conversation, but a news outlet for her to post updates and others to read them but not respond.  In a regular social situation, a person who controls the interaction to this extreme would be considered rude.  On Facebook it's just how she wants it to go.

I also have friends who never post anything original - it's all shares of pictures and game posts and other "stuff" only.  If someone tried that in an actual conversation with me, I'd probably find them boring and tiresome.  In Facebook, though, I can simply unsubscribe from their updates (which in real life would amount to walking away and ignoring someone without a word, which would be rude, but in Facebook it's perfectly acceptable.)  Facebook is one place where you can give someone the online-cut-direct and in all likelihood they won't even know they're being ignored, but you can continue to have a friendship offline.  I don't know of any situation in the 3-D world where you can treat someone as persona non grata in one situation but be friendly with them in another.

Again, you may not like it but the rules for interactions on Facebook, to many people, are at least slightly different than they are for interactions in real life.

[CakeEater]

Facebook by very definition is social media.  It is not a personal diary, or a editorial column or a blog.  It is social, so to me, long established social rules apply.

You may choose to apply those rules but there are a lot of people who do not, and in my opinion, are using Facebook entirely correctly for them.

For instance, one of my good friends does not allow anyone to post to her wall, and up until a recent FB update, did not allow her friends to comment on any posts - the new settings don't permit a user to restrict comments, apparently - so now she deletes all comments as soon as she sees them.  She sees her Facebook not as a conversation, but a news outlet for her to post updates and others to read them but not respond.  In a regular social situation, a person who controls the interaction to this extreme would be considered rude.  On Facebook it's just how she wants it to go.

I also have friends who never post anything original - it's all shares of pictures and game posts and other "stuff" only.  If someone tried that in an actual conversation with me, I'd probably find them boring and tiresome.  In Facebook, though, I can simply unsubscribe from their updates (which in real life would amount to walking away and ignoring someone without a word, which would be rude, but in Facebook it's perfectly acceptable.)  Facebook is one place where you can give someone the online-cut-direct and in all likelihood they won't even know they're being ignored, but you can continue to have a friendship offline.  I don't know of any situation in the 3-D world where you can treat someone as persona non grata in one situation but be friendly with them in another.

Again, you may not like it but the rules for interactions on Facebook, to many people, are at least slightly different than they are for interactions in real life.

See, I think FB is real life.  It's a new method of maintaining social contact, like email or texting, or writing letters, or phone calls, or running into someone unexpectedly at the shops. It doesn't get a whole new set of rules. I don't have a whole separate relationship with FB Mary as opposed to real life Mary. Whatever Mary does/says online is still her.

I would be incredibly offended by someone deleting all my comments on her posts, and would immediately cool the friendship.

Hiding someone's newsfeed isn't like walking away from them without comment in person. The person would know that you had walked away. It doesn't really have an equivalent in the 3-D world, although it would be more like having a mute button for people. And wouldn't we all use that, if we could! It's more like screening your calls, or throwing their letters away without reading them, or avoiding parties you know they'll be attending. You don't 'hear' them, but they don't know you're avoiding them.

[ydpubs]

Well that's not entirely true.  The OP has mentioned some extended relatives are in fact invited, in fact at another family function one such extended family member even brought up the niece's wedding (mentioned on the thread in Life in General).  The OP also has mentioned she hasn't asked her siblings if they are invited or not specifically because she doesn't want to either be hurt herself finding out they are, or hurt the sibling by bringing up the topic.  The OP only knows she was told she's not being invited due to it being a small wedding.

And really now who even does that?  Who tells someone "oh by the way you're not invited to my wedding" unless there was a reasonable expectation that person would be invited?  I mean hey, you all, Ehellions, you're not invited to my wedding. Pretty pointless announcement, right?  Of course, because none of you expect to be invited.  But the OP was told she's not invited specifically because there was a reasonable expectation of her being invited.

Actually that isn't quite what happened. AFAIK it was ONE male relative had a fit and guilted the HC in to inviting him and his spouse. The HC didn't cherry pick the family list excluding the OP specifically in favor of other relatives. Entitled and SS relatives strong-armed their way in to the wedding.

[WillyNilly]

Facebook by very definition is social media.  It is not a personal diary, or a editorial column or a blog.  It is social, so to me, long established social rules apply.

You may choose to apply those rules but there are a lot of people who do not, and in my opinion, are using Facebook entirely correctly for them.

For instance, one of my good friends does not allow anyone to post to her wall, and up until a recent FB update, did not allow her friends to comment on any posts - the new settings don't permit a user to restrict comments, apparently - so now she deletes all comments as soon as she sees them.  She sees her Facebook not as a conversation, but a news outlet for her to post updates and others to read them but not respond.  In a regular social situation, a person who controls the interaction to this extreme would be considered rude.  On Facebook it's just how she wants it to go.

I also have friends who never post anything original - it's all shares of pictures and game posts and other "stuff" only.  If someone tried that in an actual conversation with me, I'd probably find them boring and tiresome.  In Facebook, though, I can simply unsubscribe from their updates (which in real life would amount to walking away and ignoring someone without a word, which would be rude, but in Facebook it's perfectly acceptable.)  Facebook is one place where you can give someone the online-cut-direct and in all likelihood they won't even know they're being ignored, but you can continue to have a friendship offline.  I don't know of any situation in the 3-D world where you can treat someone as persona non grata in one situation but be friendly with them in another.

Again, you may not like it but the rules for interactions on Facebook, to many people, are at least slightly different than they are for interactions in real life.

I'm not making up rules about how to use Facebook.  I'm simply saying the already established social rules of society apply to it.  It is a social site.  That's not my opinion.  That is established fact.  Heck Facebook itself describes itself:

Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them.

People can say "I'm making up my own rules!" about anything.  That doesn't make those people polite or acting within etiquette.  People can use Facebook as whatever they want, but that doesn't change what Facebook is: a social utility.  I can use a shoe as a hammer, that doesn't change it from being a shoe, it just changes how I'm using it.

Etiquette is by definition the practices and forms prescribed by social convention; conventional requirements as to social behavior.  Facebook is a social utility.  Therefore social rules apply.  And the established etiquette is to not openly/socially discuss parties you are throwing with people who you are not inviting.  Since Facebook is social anything discussed openly on Facebook is subject to social rules of etiquette.

[princessdolly]

Etiquette will have to adapt to advances in technology. So while I agree with you that it is still subject to social rules, people cannot just use PMs whenever they want to plan an event. If they did that then FB may as well not exist and we would just go back to simple e-mail. The purpose of FB is for everone to stay up to date on each others lives.

The OP was correct in blocking the feed but BTB was not rude for mentioning her wedding on her own social media page.

[lmyrs]

I'm genuinely confused with the idea that we can never, ever talk about our participation in an event with someone that isn't invited. That would mean I can't tell my coworker that I'm going to my cousin's wedding or I can't tell my brother I'm going to the theatre to use my season ticke. Or I can't post a photo from the football game to Facebook. I think the reasonable thing is that you don't purposely discuss events with people who aren't invited IF they had a reasonable expectation of being invited.

So, then the question is who has a reasonable expectation of being invited? The OP thinks she has a reasonable expectation of being invited to her niece's "immediate family only" wedding. The niece does not lump the OP into the "immediate family only" category. I find this perfectly reasonable. Others, apparently, do not. (And I will acknowledge that I am purposely ignoring the late-stage inclusion of the whiny uncle because I don't believe that it should matter really.) If the wedding included all of the aunts & uncles, then I think OP has a reasonable expectation of an invitation, and the ride's behaviour would be wrong. But if we can agree that having an "immediate family only" wedding is not rude and that and Aunt can reasonably be excluded from "immediate family" when all other Aunts are also excluded, then we are left with the fact that the Aunt does not have a reasonable expectation to be invited and the bride is therefore not rude for discussing it.

Now, the hurt feelings, etc are a different story, but the question was, "is the bride rude?" And my answer is No.