For some, this practice feels like an affront to the intimacy of a conversation that engenders expressions of a personal and sometimes emotive nature. It poses a sense of separation rather than connection. If one of “the boxes” utters a remark, the person behind it seems more remote.

What does it mean to be part of an online death cafe? Is someone whose face cannot be seen a full-fledged participant? Might it be considered borderline voyeurism when someone plugs in merely as a listener (though maybe an occasional commenter) with the video function turned off?

Zoom burnout has become a reality for many online-saturated, busy people who aim to multi-task during a session while catching the gist of what’s going on. And there are times when it is necessary to take a visual leave of absence for a few moments.

It has reached a point, though, where there are sometimes fewer animated attendees at gatherings (of various sorts) than static, lifeless images or boxes.

Death cafe discussions offer opportunities for intimate connections with one another. Visual absence may diminish the sense of communion that this type of milieu generates. Seeing nuances of expression enables us to hone in on interpretative perceptions beyond spoken words. And probably feelings for someone are more reachable.

On the other hand, someone suggested that certain individuals may feel more comfortable behind this curtain of separation. Maybe they wouldn’t attend at all if obligated to be in fully visible presence.

In the context of death cafe discussions, how do you feel about this side effect of our modern manner of communicating electronically?