The dangerous intimacy of social location sharing

Personal experiences & relationships

• Several commenters share strong personal stories:
  • One grew up feeling unsafe and abandoned in toxic environments; permanent sharing with spouse and kids is framed as emotional reassurance so loved ones “always know where I am.”
  • Another describes how mutual 24/7 sharing with a girlfriend spiraled into obsessive monitoring, misinterpreting GPS glitches as cheating, LLM-fueled paranoia, and location spoofing. Turning sharing off later improved trust and communication.
• Others say location sharing works smoothly only after deep trust is already established; enabling it early can short-circuit the process of building trust.
• Some find read receipts as anxiety-inducing as location sharing; both can amplify insecurity.

Convenience & everyday benefits

• Many users like real-time sharing with partners or close friends for:
  • Starting dinner or coordinating kid logistics.
  • Seeing if someone is driving to avoid texting them.
  • Meeting up in cities, at festivals, in theme parks, or when convoying with multiple cars.
  • Avoiding triggering calls like “how far away are you?” for chronically late people.
• Some share with large groups (10–60+ people) and report only upsides: spontaneous hangouts, “Find my X” to locate friends, peace of mind in emergencies (ICU, morgue), and no perceived abuse.

Privacy, surveillance & threat models

• One camp argues phones and cell networks already provide constant tracking; social location sharing doesn’t add much marginal risk.
• Others push back:
  • Location services off doesn’t necessarily mean no tracking; carriers and possibly OS vendors still have data.
  • Apps and brokers (e.g., Life360-style services) have sold or aggregated location data.
  • Government and law enforcement can obtain or buy data, use Stingray-style devices, or exploit third-party surveillance markets.
• Commenters list concrete harms: stalking, domestic violence control, targeted harassment, vandalism, and political repression; they argue “trust should be earned” and location is sensitive.

Trust, control & social dynamics

• Critics emphasize:
  • Surveillance erodes trust, normalizes panopticon-like relationships, and gives abusers leverage.
  • It can create social pressure: awkward “why didn’t you stop by?” or “what were you doing there?” conversations, or expectations that any “going dark” is suspicious.
  • “Accountability” tracking after dishonesty is seen as a false fix that doesn’t restore genuine trust.
• Supporters respond that boundaries and friend selection matter: if someone would misuse the info, the relationship is already unhealthy.

Design ideas & mitigations

• Proposed improvements:
  • Contextual / coarse-grained sharing (rough area for errands; precise only near close friends or in medical contexts).
  • Time- or state-based rules (only when driving, on a trip, or when phone idle for N minutes).
  • “On request” or ping-based models: let trusted contacts ask for a fresh location, and show when/if they checked.
  • Better app implementations to avoid public, guessable tracking URLs.
• One thread argues society needs explicit norms around when location sharing is appropriate, to counterbalance ubiquitous corporate tracking; another argues the healthier norm is “don’t share at all unless absolutely necessary.”