Social media are changing the way many people interact
Social media have changed the way generations of people communicate.
Ten years ago, few could have imagined the way Facebook and other social networking and media-sharing sites would have changed the world.
The advent of the Internet was revolutionary — and social media was one of its biggest effects.
Sharing media was among the chief reasons behind the creation of the World Wide Web, which gained widespread use in the 1990s. Tim Berners-Lee’s initial Web pages and connection strategy between personal computers would almost immediately open up lines of communication. Chat rooms, instant messaging and do-it-yourself webpages sprung up quickly.
Tech-saavy pioneers learned the hypertext markup language to build their own sites and otherwise post content. E-mail services began offering ways for people to send letters, pictures and other content without a stamp. But they were limited in their scope. E-mail only reaches the audience to which it is addressed, and chat rooms mostly included only text.
In 2004, Mark Zuckerberg (who would become 2010 Time magazine “Person of the Year” and subject of the movie “The Social Network”) would launch Facebook, a site geared towards college students. The service would eventually open up to anyone over age 13. As of July, Facebook had more than 500 million active users.
And while gaps in use exist between users in different age and socio-economic groups, the site is widely accessible and used across the world. Facebook has the most active users of social networking sites, but others such as MySpace, LinkedIn and Twitter have their share of the pie, too. Other sites, such as YouTube, allow users to post videos; and many photo-sharing sites are popular.
Social media refers to the technology that allows average people to post and disseminate their own original content online — including text, photos and video. It also refers to live information flow, such as video chatting. Simply, it brings the power of the media — television, newspapers, radio, etc. — to the people and allows other people to share, comment and otherwise further the content.
Use
While note passing used to be commonplace in schools, plans for the weekend are made via Facebook events; status updates on the social networking sites digitize the gossip and teenage conversations for junior high and high school students.
College students and young adults use the technology to keep up with friends — many of whom may live across the country or globe.
Businesses are trying to harness the information source and use it to their advantage, while at the same time keeping an eye on employees’ use.
And the police are finding innovative ways to do their jobs more effectively and monitoring behavior of a new type of “cyber crimes.”
The ability for anyone to post anything online — and the ability to reach a very wide audience — has changed the communication landscape. No longer are people tied to the mainstream media of newspaper, television and radio — the information exchange has become highly personal, inexpensive and instantaneous. But that free-flow of information does not come without unintended consequences.
Reactions to the technology are almost as divided as any political race.
Some favor the instant updates, barrage of photos and video, and fast-paced exchange of information. They use the technology to speak their mind, update friends and family and network with business associates. The language of “tweets” and “hashtags” is familiar and has created a new form of staying in touch. Anyone with access to a computer can participate, and most of the popular sites are free. Add a digital camera or a webcam into the mix, and suddenly photos, video and even live-chat are possible. In short, anyone can be published and anything can be shared.
For others, the stream-of-consciousness posts are monotonous and seem self-indulging. Real in-depth discussion is boiled down to little more than 140 characters. And it can be hard to keep up with the changing technology as it evolves. The generation gap and digital divide becomes even more apparent for those without connections via these media.
Improved communications?
Recently, members of the Rainy River Community College Phi Theta Kappa and Sociology Club held a debate with the topic, “Do new social media improve communications?”
Two teams of five students each argued both sides of the topic, regardless of their personal feelings on the technology.
Scott Ducharme argued that new social media do, in fact, improve communications. His argument centered around the fact that people are now able to connect instantly with friends, relatives and other people regardless of location. Because the most of the social networking and media-sharing sites are free, people of many social classes are able to use the technology.
These conversations and pieces of information are mostly free from censorship, he said, and increases the global marketplace of ideas. And while problems have cropped up due to the sites, social media are not ultimately responsible for how they are used — and misused — Ducharme said.
It is a quantitative, not necessarily qualitative, perspective on the websites. And, ultimately, social media helps bring people closer together.
Kirden Wenger presented the opposing point of view, saying that social media sites did not improve communications. His viewpoint centered on the quality of the discussions, not on the quantity.
These sites encourage a self-centered approach that leads to a lack of effort by participants and promotes and lack of focus on others. Because interaction can be boiled down to pressing a button instead of having a meaningful conversation, the communication ultimately suffers.
It is hard to interpret tone of body language, Wenger said, and actually impacts face-to-face interactions when posting to these sites when the focus should be on the current event.
After a barrage of questions from Kelsey Fuerst regarding his own social media use, Wenger replied that he was a product of the environment he lives in — which includes being a part of those sites.
Ultimately, there was no winner and no loser in the debate. Judging by audience questions and responses, both arguments seemed to resonate with attendees.
Through the debate, both positive and negative facets of social media came into play. As with almost everything in life, social media is neither right nor wrong, but open to interpretation and will ultimately be judged by the ways in which it is used.
