Social Networking
The popularity of social networking is increasing hand in hand with information technology. This is especially true with young adults, ages 18 through 25. Ever since the invention of smart phones and other media devices, social networking has become a way for individuals to connect with the world that surrounds them. Now more than ever, we are able to perform tasks such as check in with others in our lives or update ourselves on current events on the go. But as people rely more and more on communicating through means of vices such as Facebook or Twitter, is this craze the foundation for mental, physical and social health problems?
The basis for building or maintaining a relationship stems from communication. Throughout mankind this has been primarily done by face to face verbal communication. Today there is a trend making this less common. Now instead of being in the physical presence of somebody, young adults will often use their computer or phone to long into social networks and converse using back and forth messaging. Though many see this as going along with the times; a natural human adaptation to the evolving world, many people see this resulting in a lack of mental ability for this generation and those to follow. Sam Laird gives a statistic that “worldwide, facebook users spend 10.5 billion minutes each day surfing the site-and that doesn’t even include mobile use, according to the company’s IPO filing.” This paints a picture of countless hours spent communicating online that would otherwise be spent face to face. Ultimately, this can deprive people of skills necessary for this type of personal relationship.
Being able to speak in the presence of others is a skill that is underappreciated by young adults. Many factors are present in this environment that cannot be replicated by any other means. Eye contact and facial expressions are very key aspects of communication that is impossible to perceive with online messaging. With our reliances on social networking, is the importance of these skills eventually going to vanish? This is a key argument as to how Facebook and Twitter, along with other sites, can limit our mental capabilities.
I personally experience these limitations on a daily basis. Living with friends as roommates, I have come to notice that most communication between myself and them is limited with their reluctance to put down their cell phones. It is almost as if I am fighting for their focus, as they choose to be distracted by Twitter. This says something about the control social networking can have over young adults.
Another issue this generation is facing has to do with keeping up with current events. Newspapers are hardly being used to collect information now compared to the past. Most of the stories and advertisements are exposed to us by using social networking sites. Although most social networking sites are free to register, the revenues they are projected to create for 2013 $10 billion (Frazier). This may provide economic stimulation, but it takes away the freedom of information selectivity that we are exposed to. Without the availability of current events and advertisements of our choice, social networking companies provide the exposure as they choose.
Ultimately, this leads to the controversial issue of privacy. The same information that may be perceived as private to an individual, may be considered public information to a social media company. Even if share settings are made extremely private, these companies are constantly updating, making policy changes. Unless you are constantly keeping up with these changes, personal information can be easily made public for other individuals or corporations (Frazier).
The use of algorithms by entities associated with social networking has added to the privacy concern. By using these algorithms, companies are able to pinpoint an individual’s interests, personality, sexual orientation, and even the location of where the person lives. People have argued that this technology could be beneficial from allowing them to match us up with other people we may share common interests with, or even predicting depression indicators that can aid with suicide prevention (Giles 40-43). But where does this cross the line? How much trust can we really place in the hands of these outside corporations whose ultimate goal is to turn a profit?
All of this said, it is becoming evident that the only way to completely restrict the access of this online, is to avoid putting any snippet of personal information online. Social networking is taking away the power of choice we have as far as information sharing.
One counter argument to the destructivity that social networking has had is the recent impact of young adults with the 2012 presidential elections. Political figures have relied on social networking to gain the support of young voters, that has otherwise been lacking in recent elections. This election, President Obama used the popular networking site “reddit”, to host online back and forth communication with the users. This gave him a popularity advantage over his competitors (Price). This type of advantage may even become powerful enough to sway voters in local and national elections. However, this type of communication replaced what was in place beforehand, and poses similar privacy and biased media exposures associated with all social networking.
On social networking sites, people can tend to have a false sense of confidence that they otherwise would not possess in face to face interactions. An example of how this can be a problem is cyber-bullying. This is very different than typical schoolyard bullying, but can be equally as devastating. The anonymity that can easily be provided by Facebook or Twitter allows predators and bullies alike to prey on internet users. Young adults are vulnerable to this negative attention, not only children. These kinds of viral attacks can lead to long lasting effects, including suicides. A survey of social network users reflected that up to 42% have been victims of cyber bullying (Jung). There is little to do to prevent these kinds of attacks on social network subscribers.
One of the more immediate negative impacts of social networking poses a physical health risk. My focus is primarily on distracted driving. Though using social networking does not account for all these deaths, it is a widely accepted concern that it does still play a major role (Hosansky).
It was estimated that in 2010, around 120,000 drivers were distracted by texting or social network use at any given point throughout the day. This is a statistic that is rising each year as these sites become more populated. Researchers also suggest that this type of distraction is the equivalent to driving se sites become more popular. Researchers also suggest this type of distraction is the equivalent to driving at the legal limit for alcohol consumption (Honsansky). Although there is a lack of hard evidence proving the use of a handheld device is distracting, it is clear that a better driver is one who keeps their eyes on the road instead of on a phone to update an online status.
Ultimately, social networking has it’s place in this new world of information technology. But I argue that strong caution needs to be taken. We must not allow social networking to consume us as individuals. There are mental, physical, and social aspects of life that rely on face to face communication. Facebook and Twitter may very well serve as means of interaction, but they may also become the source of devastation.
Works Cited
Frazier, Karen. "Negative Impact of Social Networking Sites." LoveToKnow. Love To Know Corp., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. <http://socialnetworking.lovetoknow.com/Negative_Impact_of_Social_Networking_Sites>. 1. This is an article from the website socialnetworking.lovetoknow.com. 2. I will be using the section regarding privacy with social networking. 3. This will be used in the section of my argument associated with privacy issues
Giles, Jim. "The Oracle of Facebook." New Scientist 214.2862 (2012): 40-43. Academic Search Premier. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. 1. This is an article titled "The Oracle of Facebook" that was published in the "New Scientist" journal. 2. This is a major source for me, I will be using pieces from the entire article. 3. I will be using this article as key argument examples throughout my paper.
Hosansky, David. "Distracted Driving." CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press, 04 May 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. 1. This is an article from CQ Researcher Online database. 2. I will be using the Overview section and the section asking if distracted driving is getting worse. 3. I will use these sections in the latter part of my paper that explains the danger of distracted driving.
Jung, Brian. "The Negative Effect of Social Media on Society and Individuals." Small Business. Demand Media, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/negative-effect-social-media-society-individuals-27617.html>. 1. This is an article from the website smallbusiness.chron.com. 2. I will use points from each of the short sections. 3. This will serve as supporting statistical evidence throughout my argument.
Laird, Sam. "Is Social Media Destroying Real-World Relationships?" Mashable.com. QuinStreet Inc., 18 June 2012. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. <http://mashable.com/2012/06/14/social-media-real-world-infographic/>. 1. This is an article published on the the website mashable.com. 2. I will be referring to the survey of the effects social media has on individuals. 3. This will be used as supporting evidence in my argument that social media is destructive in face to face interactions.
Price, Tom. "Social Media and Politics." CQ Researcher Online. CQ Press, 12 Oct. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. 1. This is an article from the online database CQ Researcher. 2. I will be using the Overview, the section on voter's privacy, and the section on close and personal. 3. In my paper, this will be used as a potential counter-argument.
