Before the internet if someone wanted to keep themselves to themselves then they pretty much could. Your interactions with family and friends would only get broadcast among those physically present or perhaps in passing conversation at a later date. It may be mentioned in a phone call or letter and maybe you’d break out the photo album once in a while but those methods have a naturally restricted reach. It takes effort to do it.
How many people could you talk to at once? how long did the conversation linger? I think there is no doubt that the ease of sharing has led to an increase of sharing and people are seemingly loosing a sense of perspective about what they are actually doing and the effect it may have.
The immediacy and the reach of social media means an off-hand remark or opinion said in jest or alcoholic haze can be broadcast to the world in the blink of an eye. Not a good thing.
Not everyone is interested though, and I don’t think that is a particularly admirable trait but it was one that used to be restricted by the effort taken to gather and disseminate the details. Not so much now.
I’d argue also that your social circle is no longer even restricted by someone actually being part of your social circle!
And yet I see that as different, since it’s about the host’s life, not a blow by low of someone else’s.
I really understand that to you it would still be intrusive. I’m not trying to convince you otherwise. I’m simply explaining why MsWhatsit asked the question earlier- to her (and me) they are different situations. To just report on a guest’s doings does cross the line to where we can see why’d you be squicked out a bit. If they included themselves, it’s less problematic, in my mind. So it was a reasonable initial question she asked, for clarification.