Considering that the developers of the World Wide Web are still around to see the consequences of their creation, one might wonder what their opinions might be on the current situation. Creating the Web, they had envisioned an interconnected world of knowledge where everyone stays informed about the events of the world and where it is screamingly easy to stay in touch. Social networks appear to be the perfect tool to accomplish the latter. The Big Three, the indispensable parts of which are Facebook and Twitter while the third place in this list is currently argued by Google Plus, Myspace, and LinkedIn, as well as other networks, provide an array of communication and sharing opportunities. As to knowledge, the situation might be not so bright. Although the social network users are all exposed to enormous and constantly updated data flow, it can be argued that the global community going online results in the limitation of the users’ knowledge, the degeneration of communication, and potential privacy hazards.
Firstly, there is a sadly ironic discrepancy between what the creators of the Web had intended and what it has come to be, to-date. The Web was designed to create a space where the entire legacy of human existence could be stored. It was supposed to give the answers to the majority of questions and readily incorporate new research in every possible field of study. What can be seen now is that the very notion of the “Web” is associated with social networks (Rottenberg and Winchell 482)? Some persons indeed use the networks as tools for research; sociological surveys, for instance, can largely benefit from engaging their participants via Facebook, and Twitter posts can serve as samples for linguistic studies. Also, social networks provide a platform for discussions; the vox populi unleashed, it seems to be a considerable contribution to the democratized society.
However, this seems to be the prerogative of the Web, not social networks. These are the tools of perpetual exposure as opposed to the potential of the Web which is cleverly described as “a classroom without walls” (Rottenberg and Winchell 485). Rather than learning and sharing knowledge, social network communication is reduced to simply – and mindlessly – sharing. The users’ lives are given a detailed account of. The events and places that they visit, the people they communicate with, the interests that they take up are likely to appear on the timeline, backed up by photographic evidence where all the participants can be tagged. Knowledge is forced out by the intimacies of the users’ lives which the public can like and share. Although that hardly broadens the users’ knowledge, the interest in other people’s lives and self-aggrandizement tend to increase in popularity, judging by the amount of Facebook and Twitter users worldwide.
Another consequence of society going online is concerned with communication and what has become of it. In the context of the Web, there are numerous possibilities. In the blogosphere, for one, the entries contain extensive speculations on a variety of subjects. The entries can be written for a multitude of purposes and thus structured differently: they can inform, argue, compare and contrast, ask questions, and encourage discussion. The Web has also proved beneficial for such spheres as science, welfare, business, education, etc., by engaging the users in webinars and web-conferences. Online journals provide an opportunity to access publications in specific areas of study, contact authors, and give instant feedback. But then again, such opportunities are provided by the Web, not the social networks.
A Facebook post is limited to one paragraph and Twitter entries do not go beyond 140 characters forcing the users to be quite concise in their thoughts (Rottenberg and Winchell 485). To the networks’ credit, the messaging helps to stay in touch with minimum effort. The underside of it is that the atmosphere of short posts that mainly concern other people’s lives does not provoke extensive discussions. Also, the initial purpose of the democratic Web environment was to make each voice matter while social networks do not produce the impression that the users’ opinions are of interest. Rather, short posts help grasp the idea in its essence, leaving the trail of thoughts behind. Thus, what has remained of communication are the few ideas overshadowed by pictures and what can be regarded as a publicized journal of events and the short “check this out” messages substituting for the more extensive capabilities of the Web.
Finally, it is worth considering, for instance, the requirements that social network applications put up before being installed to the users’ smartphones. The apps want to know the users’ identity, phone number, and location; in some cases, they can read text messages and the contact list. This information is retrieved from the user before they have even started using the network. As the user logs in, they are to insert personal data such as full name, age, and place of residence, and further – to find friends and probably add some pictures. As the users master the networks, they enable them to track the whole sequence of their lives. Research shows the drastic psychological impact such exposure and constant witnessing of what the others do can have on Facebook users (Rottenberg and Winchell 490). Apart from that, the exposure might create a serious threat for each user’s privacy.
By choosing to share their information, they give it to Facebook to own; such is the condition inscribed in the user agreement which is seldom read thoroughly. The social networks are constantly mapping the locations the photos were taken at, hosting the messenger services which can only be deemed private, and time-lining the users’ interests. It is true to say that the amount and the type of information to share is each user’s choice. However, such an amount of readily available information can serve as a hotbed for prankers, bullies, and in some cases – malignant hackers attacking the innocent and unsuspecting. Thus, the chances of one’s information being violated and used for malicious purposes are quite high, and by signing the user agreement, social network users increase these changes – voluntarily.
To conclude, the initial idea that the Web creators fostered is not quite compatible with what the users sign up for when they explore the world of social networks. Due to the ease of use and self-advertising opportunities, society indulges itself in social networking without realizing the consequences. These can be quite serious: consider the shallowness of knowledge, the degrading effect the networks have on how people communicate and express their ideas, and the facilitation of cyber-crime that information exposure offers, and if those are the short-term effects, one can only wonder what the future will present.
Works Cited
Rottenberg, Annette T., and Donna Haisty Winchell. Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. 11th ed. Boston, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014. Print.