Anti Social Media Essay Topics

  • Social Media does not make people anti-social

    When you first view the two sites of this argument, PRO might be the first side you choose. But why? Only because you think of the loss in face to face communication. But there are applications like skype and face time that still allow us to communicate face to face but internationally. That is the only PRO i can really think of. HOWEVER, there are multiple benefits to social media. You get to connect with people all around the world, you get to express yourself and your opinion to others. Social media allows you to meet new people or even reunite with old friends. All in all, social media may seem like an anti-social concept but it really is advantageous to the modern world we live in today.

  • Of course not, if it is, it should be called "antisocial networking".

    It won't change people what they truly are (well mostly), antisocial people will still be antisocial and active ones will still be active.

    Just because the number of antisocial people growing along with the development of social networks doesn't mean social networks make people antisocial. Development of technology does.

    People are antisocial because they are to lazy/afraid to make conversation with others. And thats where technology came in, they gave us help of our inability to talk to others face-to-face. Like the creation of telegram, telephone, radiowave, internet, etc. Those developments gave us a growing idea over centuries,"If things were this easy why would I do it the hard way", it gave us a bad behaviour, of wanting to do everything easily.

    Social networks is just their new weapon, quite formidable yes, but the mindmaster itself came from all way back in the past, our overgrowing idea of doing everything with ease. Don't blame social networks, blame humanity.

  • No, it is infact the opposite of that.

    The main thing about social networks are to talk to each other. And talking is the opposite of antisocial. And also we can speek to each other at any timewith it, but with out it we can only speek to a person if they are in the same room as you.

  • No, i disagree

    I feel like a lot of people are already anti social so people are just using it as an excuse but that's not important it don't make people antisocial it makes them explore more. Alt of people online talk to people they haven't seen in years just to catch up.

  • Look at yourselves!!!

    Every body here is technically using social media. Social media is rapidly changing it all began with Skype peopl are now talking to each other with virtual reality, for me as long as the person is real i don't care how i talk to them so look at yourselfs and get a life.

  • I feel like it makes us more social

    Although the experience can be different for everybody, I have met new people online who I would consider more close than people I know irl. Some may argue that internet friends aren't real, but I consider anyone I can relate to and rely on even if they aren't facing me to be me true friends. That, to me, sounds like the definition of social.

  • Not according to definition.

    Anti-social: unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people
    Social Networking: the use of dedicated websites and applications to interact with other users, or to find people with similar interests to oneself.
    By definition, not the case. The term seems to not be isolated to the "real" world. If someone is interacting in the virtual world, then that person is not anti-social.
    By definition, Skype falls into the category of social networking. Skype actually enables us to communicate face-to-face despite long distances.
    I've actually seen people learn to be more social through social networking sites. Social networking, to me, is a tool. What someone does with it determines whether they are anti-social or not.

  • Not according to definition

    Anti-social: unwilling or unable to associate in a normal or friendly way with other people
    Social Networking: the use of dedicated websites and applications to interact with other users, or to find people with similar interests to oneself.
    By definition, not the case. The term seems to not be isolated to the "real" world. If someone is interacting in the virtual world, then that person is not anti-social.
    By definition, Skype falls into the category of social networking. Skype actually enables us to communicate face-to-face despite long distances.
    I've actually seen people learn to be more social through social networking sites. Social networking, to me, is a tool. What someone does with it determines whether they are anti-social or not.

  • Breaking the Barriers

    Social media has broken all the barriers of communication be it in terms of cost, distance and time. It has emerged as a popular marketing tool. It has brought the outside world more closer. In today's world where we have jio , where our government is aiming to provide easier access to internet in form of wifihotspots, no one can resist using social media. In my opninon social media has made us more social .

  • That's totally not true!

    Social media helps in long distance relationships. People are more open here. What you can't personally speak, is easy to speak indirectly. You find people from different parts of the world who you share your interests with. You can share you feelings and talk to someone at any time of the day. You get to share a piece of your lives with all as well as discover them too. It doesn't matter who it is.

  • Communicating with other people is easier than ever, but is greater connection fuelling antisocial instincts?

    For: Social networking technology is making us more antisocial

    By Chris Edwards

    In Mike Leigh's film 'Naked', Johnny is a near-sociopathic loser who doesn't interact with people so much as harangue them with bizarre theories on everything from barcodes to the meaninglessness of time. In hiding from a crime committed in Manchester, he tours London looking for lost souls to whom he can feel superior. Made in 1993, the year before the World Wide Web went mainstream, we could feel reassured that Johnny was a rarity. You would have to be very unlucky to run into someone like him on a bus or even in the pub.

    But, thanks to the Web, an entire race of Johnnies has appeared, expounding with considerable hostility why their views on 9/11, the New World Order and life in general are hugely superior to anyone else's. Their opponents are shills, trolls or fools, or possibly all three.

    Now, you can argue that the Internet has done much to bring people together. At the same time, it has made it easier for society to split into a huge number of in-groups who wage wars of words on the other.

    Commenters on blogs or news articles do not just claim the author is wrong, but that they are a waste of skin that should die.

    The Internet cartoon character John 'Gabe' Gabriel has a theory for it. It's the Greater Internet Fu... I'm sorry, I can't finish the name because it's not the sort of thing that you want to repeat in polite society. In summary, using just a blackboard sketch, Gabriel argues that there are two components to becoming an online sociopath: anonymity and an audience.

    Almost a decade before Gabriel's summary made its way onto the Penny Arcade website, researcher Judith Donath analysed behaviour on Usenet, a precursor to today's Web-based 'fora'. Trolling - deliberately riling other users - had become a popular pastime and Donath set out to discover why. It's not just names that online discourse lacks, she found: "Many of the basic cues about personality and social role we are accustomed to in the physical world are absent.

    Anyone who has had the tone in one of their emails misread will understand the problem. It's hard to convey the subtlety of face-to-face or telephone interaction using the most common form of online discourse: text. People use emoticons but they can convey an alternative, almost sinister meaning if the recipient reads it that way. Offence is not just easily given on the Internet; it's taken all too easily as well.

    The exaggerated nature of online discourse, in which opening salvos in an exchange are often unnecessarily hostile, is arguably a consequence of Donath's observation of a lack of additional body language or other social cues. It might also be compensation for a lack of that stimulation to the brain.

    Pioneering media researcher Marshall McLuhan wrote about the numbing effect of technology's ability to extend our bodies. It's fair to say that some of McLuhan's concepts do get a little muddled in his writing. He considered TV a 'hot medium' - one that demanded active involvement from the viewer - in contrast's to radio's status of a 'cool medium'. From today's perspective this seems at best an idiosyncratic notion if not just plain wrong. The TV doesn't get called the idiot box for nothing.

    In 'Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man' - a book that predates the Web by 30 years - McLuhan thought the extensions to the self that technological gadgets provide allow people to separate from themselves. Like Narcissus, they become blind to the mirror that reality provides. Not only that, the increase in stimulation from these new external senses is beyond what the body can handle. "Shock induces a generalised numbness or an increased threshold to all types of perception. The victim seems immune to pain or sense."

    Technology may help redress the balance and allow people to convey and read the subtle social signals we learn through real-world interactions. But as we have become more connected we have become disconnected from ourselves and each other.

    Against:Social networking technology is not making us more antisocial

    By Andy Pye

    Advances in technology have been overwhelmingly beneficial for mankind. From the first tools honed out of flint by prehistoric man, to the latest cures for cancer, every innovation has made our lives that bit easier, longer, more comfortable. And yet, almost inevitably, each new idea comes with a "dark side". In building his Rocket, George Stephenson would not have envisaged that trains might one day be the implement of choice for stressed financiers contemplating suicide. In his work with electricity and magnetism, Michael Faraday would not have been concerned with the use of electricity in torturing dissidents and political prisoners.

    The World Wide Web was 20 years old last year, and yet its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee, would not have been held back by the concern that it could enable would-be terrorists to discover recipes for making fertiliser bombs, nor be a communications mechanism for paedophiles.

    None of these problems would be proposed as a reason for stockpiling the idea. The benefits to mankind still outweigh the disadvantages. And so it is with social networking - a technology born out of modern communications that enables the sharing of information in an efficient manner with like-minded people.

    As with all the technologies described above, it too can be abused. It is important to recognise how this happens, and how to build effective defences, but without shackling its potential with a metaphorical red flag, as Luddites once attempted to do with the motor car.

    Carrying out risk assessments, to help identify potential problem areas, and build up a strategy for dealing with them, should be part of every development. If a mobile phone has potential for detonating improvised explosive devices, then the security forces need to have the capability to switch off the network when a risk is identified. This may, indeed, have happened already, in the recent 7/7 attacks in London.

    Berners-Lee is one of the pioneer voices in favour of "net neutrality" and says that ISPs should supply "connectivity with no strings attached", and should neither control nor monitor customers' browsing activities without consent. He advocates the idea that net neutrality is a kind of human network rights.

    There is no doubt that social networking was abused during the recent rioting in England's major cities. It enabled them to regroup faster than police forces were able to anticipate. These early concerns, however, can be mitigated by infiltrating groups, encouraging other members of the community to shop the yob element within, and by selectively disabling the social network at times of high risk.

    Big sticks have to be part of the process. The higher the deterrent, the less likely it is that criminals will re-offend. The most effective way of emptying jails is to increase sentences. I recently spent some time in Kazakhstan, where robust policing is the norm. One method is to drive criminals 20km into the Steppe and leave them to walk home alone.

    As the England cricket team reaches the exalted number one position in the world, the sport has worked tirelessly at grass roots level to introduce the sport - and the standards of social behaviour that it embraces - to youngsters. Holiday courses and training sessions for youngsters have never been fuller. 

    And the social networks - those same ones accused of being responsible for inciting rioting - are buzzing with youngsters sharing their experiences. Team selections are now posted on Facebook, rather than on the club noticeboard. The Kent Cricket Board has just appointed its first social networking officer.

    The use of social networking as an enabler for criminals is a symptom of problems in our society, not the problem in itself. And just as other technological advances in our society, it should be encouraged to flourish as a force for good, while tackling the small minority of users who wish to use it for undesirable reasons.

    One thought on “Anti Social Media Essay Topics

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *