The progress of the digital era is one of the most discussed topics today, and people are free to introduce their attitudes toward the Internet and online services. On the one hand, the Internet performs a critical function of global connection. Finding the necessary information and sharing data does not take much time. On the other hand, it is wrong to neglect that the Internet has changed the quality of interpersonal communication and decreased the number of real-life meetings. This paper aims to answer the question, “How does the Internet affect human relationships and communication processes?” Despite the evident benefits of the Internet in human life, like time-saving and the content of exchanged information, the challenges of interpersonal communication continue to decrease the worth of nonverbal components and privacy issues.
It is hard to imagine this life without the Internet, and the possibility of saving time remains an important benefit in the context of interpersonal communication. In their intention to improve relationships, people try to use a single chance to share data in a timely manner. Sam defines the Internet as a “global village, transcending the boundaries of time and space” (473). Several years ago, society was concerned about the inability to find enough time and space to find the material, report on the event, or demonstrate personal opinions. Today, it is easy to create a post, record a video, or leave a comment from any part of the world. The Internet has facilitated interpersonal communication by significantly reducing time frames.
Another consequence of using the Internet for interpersonal communication is improved content expansion. Most individuals first grab their phones or other digital devices that connect them with the entire world when they wake up. According to Ruben et al., it does not matter if a person turns on the phone to scroll through Facebook or add another picture of their Outfit of the Day; the idea remains the same – the Internet is inevitable. Sometimes, people need more details about the situation or clear evidence not to be alone in this world (Sam 474). The Internet is a connection that is not determined by the weight or physical size of the message. Users can print words, send audio files, share video material, and exchange pictures. Thus, the Internet positively affects interpersonal communication due to a great opportunity of exchanging different types of personal and public information.
At the same time, any impact can be interpreted in different ways, and, together with evident advantages, the Internet may challenge interpersonal communication because of poorly interpreted nonverbal language. Technology-mediated communication is developed in various ways, but nonverbal behavior cues are frequently absent (Ruben et al.). Human gestures, voice tones, physical appearances, touches, and gazes are necessary to express relative status and define relationship roles in everyday life and business (Goman). The Internet transfers visual information but does not contribute to the appropriate interpretation of the material. Still, it is human nature to pay attention to nonverbal responses and “all of the emotional nuance behind the words,” either consciously or unconsciously (Goman). Digital communication is not as powerful and all-encompassing as face-to-face interaction. Many critical elements are neglected, which deprives people of observing many things and details. The Internet damages the quality of interpersonal communication due to the absence of body language and physical cues.
Finally, when people initiate communication processes, they expect their information to be private and personal, which is not always possible on the Internet. Digitalization and globalization are usually associated with vast opportunities and unlimited knowledge. Despite multiple attempts to strengthen the global politics of cyber systems, privacy complications continue emerging, and personal data protection is dramatically challenged (DeNardis 60). Many invisible threats exist even if people think they are alone in the room. For example, camera surveillance and video recording may be stored with the help of cloud services without even notifying users (DeNardis 60). There are many ways to circumvent privacy agreements, and interpersonal communication can never be the same as the one when two people talk to each other face to face. The Internet did not pursue such purposes when it was introduced for public usage, but hackers and technical experts developed their skills to penetrate private human lives in the most meticulous ways.
In conclusion, the impact of the Internet on interpersonal communication is associated with different benefits and shortages. People are easily fascinated with the number of digitalized opportunities they get when they choose the Internet for communication. They enjoy the absence of geographical boundaries, distance, and time limitations and exchange pictures and voices in a convenient way. At the same time, the lack of understanding of nonverbal communication and no privacy questions the appropriateness of the Internet for personal communication. Many individuals need to have guarantees and control their words and information distribution. The Internet facilitates many processes as well as creates additional problems that people need to consider if they want to enjoy their interpersonal relationships and communication. It is high time to realize the difference between online and face-to-face communication to prevent damage and gain personal profits.
Works Cited
DeNardis, Laura. The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch. Yale University Press, 2020.
Goman, Carol Kinsey. “Has Technology Killed Face-To-Face Communication?”Forbes, Web.
Ruben, Mollie A., et al. “Is Technology Enhancing or Hindering Interpersonal Communication? A Framework and Preliminary Results to Examine the Relationship Between Technology Use and Nonverbal Decoding Skill.”Frontiers, Web.
Sam, Susan. “Impact of Internet on Interpersonal Relationships.” International Journal of Home Science, vol. 5, no. 2, 2019, pp. 473-476.