In the nineties, distance explained everything. If your closest confidant was in Jakarta and you were in Alaska, the friendship had to remain digital. Geography was the excuse, the logic, the reason intimacy lived in text alone. We accepted it because there was no other way. The miracle was that you could even find someone across the world who understood you. Meeting wasn’t expected; it was impossible.
By 2013, impossibility had shifted. The internet was no longer a frontier of dial‑up tones and guestbooks; it was a landscape of dashboards, timelines, and private threads. Tumblr was the confessional booth, long messages carried the weight of letters, and video calls stood in for presence when geography didn’t. We thought permanence lived in archives, in saved conversations, in the way a status line could carry the weight of a mood.
When Aada and I began chatting, we weren’t teenagers discovering social media together. We were both adults who had lived through earlier internet cultures, carrying different expectations into the relationship. She was a generation older than me, and that difference mattered. For her, the internet was a lifeline but also something that could overwhelm when intimacy accelerated too quickly. For me, it was always an archive, a place where permanence mattered. We carried different logics into the same bond: she leaned toward balance, I leaned toward continuity.
With Aada, the geography collapsed. She was never across the world. She was close, almost within reach. That proximity made the absence feel surreal, almost like a breach of logic. If we were this close, why hadn’t we crossed the threshold into presence? For years, incredulity was my companion.
At first, my feelings carried a romantic weight. I was in love with her, while she loved me in a different register — protective, sisterly, platonic. But over time, the romance melted into something else. What I craved most was not possession or partnership, but the same unbreakable bond she wanted: a friendship that could withstand silence, distance, and time. The longing shifted from desire to durability.
The internet accelerates intimacy. You tell each other everything very quickly, compressing years of disclosure into weeks. That acceleration was intoxicating, but also overwhelming. She thought meeting would magnify it, that the intensity would spill into the room. I believed presence would have normalized it, slowed the tempo, grounded us in ordinary gestures — sitting together, sharing a meal, letting silence exist. What I wanted wasn’t the heightened pace of confession, but the ordinary rituals of companionship — the kind of presence that feels sustainable, not cinematic.
The sound of a message became Pavlov’s bell. Each ding promised connection, a hit of continuity. Silence destabilized me. When the bell didn’t ring, it wasn’t neutral — it was a message in itself.
When silence stretched too long, I went back to the archive, re‑reading old messages to reassure myself. The archive preserved continuity but also prolonged loss. In those cycles, I realized what I craved wasn’t romance at all. It was the reassurance of bond — the certainty that she was there, that the friendship was unbreakable.
Offline rituals became counterweights. Coffee as grounding, writing soundtracks as scaffolding, day trips as embodied anchors. They slowed the digital acceleration, reminded me that presence can be ordinary. And in those rituals, I saw clearly: what I wanted was not a lover, but a companion.
Trust online felt absolute in the moment, fragile in absence. Each message was a declaration of care, but silence made certainty evaporate. That paradox taught me that what mattered wasn’t romantic exclusivity, but enduring loyalty.
There were genuine moments: small gifts exchanged, thoughtful gestures that carried joy. They were real, chosen for me, carrying intention. But presence would have meant more. Not because I wanted romance, but because I wanted the ordinary ritual of friendship — the smile across the room, the shared cookie, the continuity of being together.
Memory preserved continuity, allowing me to re‑live genuine moments. But it also froze the ache. Even in ache, the craving clarified: I wanted the bond itself, not the romance. I wanted the friendship to be unbreakable, the archive to testify to permanence. We were archivists of our own longing, convinced that digital files could hold eternity.
Internet intimacy rewired me. It conditioned anticipation, destabilized silence, and taught me to believe in bonds that were both ghostly and defining. My generation pioneered this experiment, living through it without language for “dopamine hits” or “notification addiction.” We were raw, unregulated, improvising intimacy in real time.
With Aada, the paradox is sharpest. She wasn’t across the world. She was close, almost within reach. At first, I thought I wanted romance. But what I truly craved was the same thing she did: an unbreakable friendship, a bond that could survive silence, distance, and time. And layered into that craving was the generational difference — two adults, shaped by different internet literacies, improvising intimacy across eras.
Internet love and friendship are real, complex, and defining. But proximity without presence leaves a ghost that still lingers — even when the romance has melted into the craving for permanence. And if you want the punchline: the internet taught us that “Seen” could feel like abandonment, that reblogs were declarations of loyalty, and that the most sacred ritual was waiting for a playlist to load in full. We were pioneers of ghostly love in the 2010s, and we carry its paradoxes still.
Scored by Copilot, Conducted by Leslie Lanagan
Stories That Are All True 