Skip to content

‘If I switch it off, my girlfriend might think I’m cheating’: inside the rise of couples location sharing

Technology
417 217 12.3k
  • I have my location shared with my wife because while I was working out of the house I got tired of answering the same text message ("how far from home are you so I can start dinner?") every afternoon. She's the only one in the world I have no secrets from, so I just never turned it off. I honestly don't know if she still knows I've got it shared with her.

    She does.

  • Vile.

    I trust my wife, and she trusts me. We trust each other not to ask for stupid brain-poisoning shit that humans weren't meant to have access to that could one day blow up horribly.

    I don't have her passwords, she doesn't have mine. Our phones are locked. I could technically see what she's doing online I suppose via traffic snooping in the router logs but the day I feel the urge to do something like that is the day I kill myself for having abandoned basic moral principles.

    We're apes, we have brains built for avoiding snakes in tall grass and finding water and berries. You poison yourself with surveillance, you feed your worst and most destructive impulses. Practice keeping secrets, practice being okay with not knowing. Trust isn't surveillance, trust is knowing that if something fucking mattered you'd be told.

    edit: I want my wife to be able to break my heart because if she does she'll have a good reason for doing so. That is what trust is.

    It's only vile when you project insecurities or bad intent...

    We both know each other's passwords for everything. We use a shared database for it. We both know each other's phone, unlock codes and often through laziness will just use each other's phones for shit. We shared the same bank accounts, we don't have separate money. We share the same vehicles....etc

    What's mine is hers, what's hers is mine. Except literally.

    We also both have each other's location. What do we use this for? Essentially nothing except when one of us is traveling, or someone is feeling neurotic/worried. The peace of mind knowing that your significant other didn't just die in a car crash part way to their destination and are still making progress is significant.

    We don't hide things from each other, we've explicitly built a relationship of openness and trust, brought on by us actually_not_ trusting each other for a long time. We are completely transparent, and you know what this has helped build? Trust. Know what it has torn down? Insecurities. It's been great.

    Would recommend.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Hi bros. I'm just letting you know about this terrible app called GPS spoofer. Make extra sure you've haven't installed it on your phone by mistake because a lot of apps will download this without letting you know.

  • It's only vile when you project insecurities or bad intent...

    We both know each other's passwords for everything. We use a shared database for it. We both know each other's phone, unlock codes and often through laziness will just use each other's phones for shit. We shared the same bank accounts, we don't have separate money. We share the same vehicles....etc

    What's mine is hers, what's hers is mine. Except literally.

    We also both have each other's location. What do we use this for? Essentially nothing except when one of us is traveling, or someone is feeling neurotic/worried. The peace of mind knowing that your significant other didn't just die in a car crash part way to their destination and are still making progress is significant.

    We don't hide things from each other, we've explicitly built a relationship of openness and trust, brought on by us actually_not_ trusting each other for a long time. We are completely transparent, and you know what this has helped build? Trust. Know what it has torn down? Insecurities. It's been great.

    Would recommend.

    Therapy would be better for you than a panopticon.

    What if your partner wants to run away from you? Do you not trust that they would have a good reason?

  • Idk, I think it would increase anxiety for my SO, and we have a lot of trust. For example, if I take a coworker home, go out to lunch, etc w/o telling my SO, and they see that deviation in my routine, they could start doubting that trust. But if they just don't see it, they just rely on what we tell each other, and if it's not important, it doesn't need to be communicated and can't create that anxiety.

    At least that's my take. My SO is really trusting, but also quite anxious because of nonsense they read on SM and whatnot, so a deviation can create a lot of unnecessary concern.

    But yeah, I wouldn't be completely opposed to a self-hosted solution here. I use GrapheneOS, and if the UX isn't too terrible (i.e. easy to toggle off and on), it could be really useful for something like going hiking alone or whatever.

    if I take a coworker home, go out to lunch, etc w/o telling my SO, and they see that deviation in my routine, they could start doubting that trust

    This means there are still significant insecurities in the relationship that can bubble up and become problems, and you know about these.

    You do not trust your spouse to trust you and not misinterpret your intentions.

    Paradoxally You can defeat some of this insecurity by being transparent and welcoming misinterpretation if you believe you both have full trust in each other.

    As a high anxiety person myself, this works to defeat the anxiety which is often feared of the unknown. By proving that deviations to your routine are not something they should feel anxious about, then that anxiety can melt away.

  • There was no need for you to re-state my point.

    Are you ok?

  • Not hard to understand, no, but many find it to be creepy and invasive.

    A lot of those people are projecting their insecurities onto others relationships.

  • Some of the arguments for mutual tracking relate to safety, not cheating.

    For real and there's so many people in this thread who have only had toxic relationships or are in toxic relationships, projecting insecurities and lack of trust onto others who may not have these problems.

    I don't think this is a good idea for most people, but for some it makes sense and we need to remember that everyone is in different situations.

    When you have a spouse that travels a lot, anxiety can get pretty high.

  • Jesus fuck, what did people do with their spouses and kids before phones? Trust them?

    Sounds unlikely.

    Maury Povich

  • This is how it works with us too.

    I'm kind of neurotic and get worried that something may have happened to her while she's traveling, which she does a lot. If she's supposed to arrive somewhere and hasn't I start pacing and biting my nails thinking of all the bad things that could have happened.

    We shared each other's location and the peace of mind has helped a lot.

    We don't keep secrets from each other. Some folks in this thread see location sharing as a threat, I assume because they are uncomfortable or have existing trust issues with their relationship that are yet to be resolved?

    I’m kind of neurotic

    The solution to this is to deal with the neurosis, not to try and control all the information. You're giving in to your negative thoughts with unhealthy behaviour instead of dealing with it properly.

  • If this was demanded of me, I would end the relationship immediately. That's absolutely not worth it.

    Yep. This is one of those hard lines for me. And I feel like it's a red flag for anyone who demands it from a partner.

    I trust my partner and they trust me. I actively encourage them to do things without me, because I want them to be an independent person. I want them to have friends that I don't hang out with.

  • If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say "you should trust your partner" then you haven't thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

    The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn't enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can't trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

    On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn't always manifest straight away. What's safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

    Privacy is something that I think needs to be actively encouraged. It is a right, and thinks like location tracking are creeping their way into daily life and eroding that right.

    No one should have the ability to violate that. And we shouldn't be making it easier to.

  • It's only vile when you project insecurities or bad intent...

    We both know each other's passwords for everything. We use a shared database for it. We both know each other's phone, unlock codes and often through laziness will just use each other's phones for shit. We shared the same bank accounts, we don't have separate money. We share the same vehicles....etc

    What's mine is hers, what's hers is mine. Except literally.

    We also both have each other's location. What do we use this for? Essentially nothing except when one of us is traveling, or someone is feeling neurotic/worried. The peace of mind knowing that your significant other didn't just die in a car crash part way to their destination and are still making progress is significant.

    We don't hide things from each other, we've explicitly built a relationship of openness and trust, brought on by us actually_not_ trusting each other for a long time. We are completely transparent, and you know what this has helped build? Trust. Know what it has torn down? Insecurities. It's been great.

    Would recommend.

    You were so untrusting you had to go to those lengths to make it so there is no way to lie to each other and you say that's a good thing?

  • That's really not the type of person she is, or the type of relationship we have. She might well know that I'm still sharing with her, but it's not because she's controlling or untrusting. It would be because she had a reason to check recently.

  • Call me old fashioned, but I put it in the same bucket as a prenup

    I don't agree. Prenups are passive, they don't do anything until not needed. all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust.

    all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust.

    How? My situation is similar to the person you’re replying to and I’m curious how two consenting adults sharing their location with each other is “a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust”.

    Maybe if one party is unwilling or has no say/control in location sharing but specifically in the scenario at hand I don’t see it.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    I don't want to share my location nor have anyone else's shared with me.

    Friends and partners can text "I'll be there in 5"

    My friend shares her location with her mother. Her mother then nags her with like "Are you seeing someone new? You're spending a lot of time in north brooklyn now." Like, who needs that, or even the temptation of that?

    A tech solution is not going to fix a social/mental problem like fear of cheating.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    People don't have the emotional maturity to deal with this tool.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    You can send it on a one-off basis in Signal. Share location, requested sparingly it can be done but seems like there are bigger issues by the time thats even necessary and coming up regularly

  • all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust.

    How? My situation is similar to the person you’re replying to and I’m curious how two consenting adults sharing their location with each other is “a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust”.

    Maybe if one party is unwilling or has no say/control in location sharing but specifically in the scenario at hand I don’t see it.

    because you are not sharing your location with each other. you are sharing your location with a greedy company that also lets your significant other, and then the highest bidder access this information. they are doing whatever they please with it to make (even more) money.
    see, I was so into google's timeline feature years ago. but soon after I realized privacy is a thing I was disgusted of it and turned it off. if you run nextcloud and that addon I don't remember, or reitti, at home and use that, and you keep is somewhat safe*, then it's fine, and I could imagine using that, even just for myself.

    I should have explained that. for some reason I tend to assume that lemmy users are privacy conscious, but that's probably not true.

    * don't expose the services because your data will get stolen and you'll get hacked by automated systems. run a VPN on the server, only expose the port of that. then you can access the services through a VPN. wireguard is relatively simple, and it's secure.

  • Therapy would be better for you than a panopticon.

    What if your partner wants to run away from you? Do you not trust that they would have a good reason?

    You're literally inventing scenarios.

  • 148 Stimmen
    61 Beiträge
    465 Aufrufe
    A
    That's why I feel like people need to be aware of this, and understand there are Republicans and Democrats taking Thiel's money. It doesn't matter how he gets there, this is his ultimate goal. He would prefer the far right Nazi way, but if he has to hide behind a moderate Democrat he'll do that too. Look at this shit. Ro Kahnna is definitely setting himself up to run for president in 2028. Either that or possibly vice president to Gavin Newsome. Newsome also has taken Thiel money in the past. Thiel's private Uranium mine just happens to be in the home state of Thomas Massie, the Republican who is partnering with Kahnna to take on the Trump Epstein files in a bipartisan tag team. I'm glad they're exposing rich pedophiles, but don't give them fucking brownie points when it's clear they've been sitting on this shit the whole fucking time. The same with Vance going to Rupert Murdoch before all of this dropped. They definitely could have exposed Trump before he even ran for president the second time, but they didn't bc this is just part of their evil bullshit plans. This is just a game to them, and the people who have been hurt and exploited mean nothing. Fuck these evil pieces of shit. All of them.
  • 89 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    162 Aufrufe
    S
    I suspect people (not billionaires) are realising that they can get by with less. And that the planet needs that too. And that working 40+ hours a week isn’t giving people what they really want either. Tbh, I don't think that's the case. If you look at any of the relevant metrics (CO², energy consumption, plastic waste, ...) they only know one direction globally and that's up. I think the actual issues are Russian invasion of Ukraine and associated sanctions on one of the main energy providers of Europe Trump's "trade wars" which make global supply lines unreliable and costs incalculable (global supply chains love nothing more than uncertainty) Uncertainty in regards to China/Taiwan Boomers retiring in western countries, which for the first time since pretty much ever means that the work force is shrinking instead of growing. Economical growth was mostly driven by population growth for the last half century with per-capita productivity staying very close to inflation. Disrupting changes in key industries like cars and energy. The west has been sleeping on may of these developments (e.g. electric cars, batteries, solar) and now China is curbstomping the rest of the world in regards to market share. High key interest rates (which are applied to reduce high inflation due to some of the reason above) reduce demand on financial investments into companies. The low interest rates of the 2010s and also before lead to more investments into companies. With interest going back up, investments dry up. All these changes mean that companies, countries and people in the west have much less free cash available. There’s also the value of money has never been lower either. That's been the case since every. Inflation has always been a thing and with that the value of money is monotonically decreasing. But that doesn't really matter for the whole argument, since the absolute value of money doesn't matter, only the relative value. To put it differently: If you earn €100 and the thing you want to buy costs €10, that is equivalent to if you earn €1000 and the thing you want to buy costing €100. The value of money dropping is only relevant for savings, and if people are saving too much then the economy slows down and jobs are cut, thus some inflation is positive or even required. What is an actual issue is that wages are not increasing at the same rate as the cost of things, but that's not a "value of the money" issue.
  • 33 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    rooki@lemmy.worldR
    Woah in 2 years, that will be definitly not be forgotten until then....
  • AI and misinformation

    Technology technology
    3
    20 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    D
    Don’t lose hope, just pretend to with sarcasm. Or if you are feeling down it could work the other way too. https://aibusiness.com/nlp/sarcasm-is-really-really-really-easy-for-ai-to-handle#close-modal
  • You probably don't remember these but I have a question

    Technology technology
    52
    2
    96 Stimmen
    52 Beiträge
    591 Aufrufe
    lordwiggle@lemmy.worldL
    Priorities man, priorities
  • 347 Stimmen
    51 Beiträge
    692 Aufrufe
    4
    Interestingly it loads today. I have AdAway on my phone and PiHole in my home network
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    1k Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 0 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    V
    they should be required to be designed to be safe in the way people actually use them, as opposed to this hypothetical driver who has duct taped thier hands to the wheel...