The Secret Stead is the pen name of a UK-based writer and
Our World Wide Web of interconnected resources communicated via the Internet has helped to turn the real world into the global village first envisaged in the 1960s. Half a century on and we can wave to each other from across the world through windows that technology has contracted to the size of a smartphone no larger than the palm of our hands.No one can ignore the Internet any more; so tightly has its cybernetic threads become woven into the fabric of our lives that we no longer even capitalise the word. The "I" has become "i", and we all a little smaller with it. A trend popular enough to have developed from a proper noun to a common one, a now generic term for a fascinating invention, it has become such an integral part of our families that we wonder what we had ever done without it.
Over a year ago I wrote about the second genesis of the Web with the introduction of social networking, thinking out loud whether social sites were as sociable as their names suggested. After reading a BBC news report about British Olympic diver Tom Daley today, I decided to take another look at my article.
To briefly explain the Daley incident: Having failed to win a gold medal at this summer's 2012 London Olympics, the 18-year-old received a tweet from an irate follower telling Daley he had let down his late father Rob, who had passed away in May 2011 of brain cancer. If initial reports are true, a 17-year-old has been arrested in conjunction with the message.
Were the police too heavy-handed? The police will step in when there is a real or perceived threat of harm from a continued barrage of insults over a period of time, but there is more here than the issue of insults (social or otherwise) being criminalised. Disputes aside whether such unthinking and childish behaviour warrants arrest, it's arguably one example of how the more "sociable" we become on the Internet, the more our good manners go into decline. We may have dropped the capital "I" from the Internet, but it's propping up the "I" of our ego - sometimes to such uncomfortable extremes that it raises the question, is social media really just all talk?
Often regarded as a bit of fun, this second genesis has seen the advent of social networking take a hold of the Web, and us by default. With Facebook, Twitter and other popular social websites spun over both our personal and business lives, it is clear that society has become ever more dependent on social media. After Google, Facebook is the world's second most popular website, where friends can get together all across the world without leaving their seats, but is it as enjoyable as going out to lunch with real friends to shoot the breeze? For some I'm sure it is, and for those of us that can't leave their homes, it must be very liberating.
These connectivity tools are a powerful aid for those of us who want to reach out to people we greatly admire or to different cultures without leaving our doorstep. London is being dubbed the first "Social Media Games" and we've even had "Twitter revolutionaries" - where we've been able to follow the political battles of different countries being fought in cyberspace, taking the usage of these aids to a whole new level that not even their founders had envisaged. Such interaction has made us even more predisposed to the Web. Technology companies and marketers are, of course, advocating this dependence since it opens up more opportunities to get the spider to the fly.
The majority of users do not appear to be worried, however, but simply enjoy the convenience and the fun that social media sites bring. We don't think about potential implications. Technophobes, on the other hand, have touted that concerns exist. The critics see the grip social networking has on Web 2.0 culture as worrisome at times, because they say social media isn't always the social pastime its name would suggest.
How Well Do You Know Your Friends?
A question for social media addicts: How many of the people you connect with online do you really know? It's possible that you've had a really mind-blowing micro chat on Twitter with someone about a common interest, but if you passed them on the street in real life would you even recognise them, let alone stop and chew the daily cud?
We warn young children about the danger of talking to strangers, but we would do well to heed adult advice. It's dangerous to use these devices as though we were talking face-to-face with someone, even with the benefit of a web-cam, because there are important, interpersonal social skills and cues we need to learn in life. As the Daley incident so clearly shows, we need to learn how to talk with people, not just how to interact with them via technological advancements. We need to re-connect with our physical world, and each other, to get acquainted with how life works, and learn how to protect ourselves in ways that only physical first hand experience can teach us.
I wonder how that angry youth who was so rude to Daley would have reacted had he met the Olympic diver on the street? Would he have run up and accosted Daley, shouting in his face? That's what the tweet equates to, after all. He probably wouldn't have done that, for fear people on the street think him mad. Societal norms in Britain dictate that you just don't go up to strangers and verbally assault them, unless there is something seriously wrong with you.
Yet, when we chat with others online with the proverbial paper bag of anonymity over our heads, we feel it gives us a "get-out" clause to good manners. Under the assumption we're never going to see them, we are more likely to say and do whatever we want. It might give us more confidence with people, but it also breaks down other important interpersonal barriers, such as accepting responsibility and being accountable for our actions.
People can push their hate agendas more easily and celebrities aren't immune to online bullying; these cyberbullies, or trolls, make up for the emotional void in their real lives by filling up the comment box of others. They find it easier to be rude online, or to say whatever they want, uncontrolled by the rules of etiquette or moral conscience when human faces are computer screens. Engaging someone through Twitter, or to chat with them, or leave a comment on their Facebook profile is one thing, but it's another thing to look them in the eye and tell them what you think. When Daley's 17-year-old critic became uncomfortable from the unwanted attention, he tweeted an apology.
Granted the Daley incident is just one tweet out of millions posted daily (and in Britain the police take cyberharassment seriously) but privacy activist Andrew Keen is terrified by this attitude and expresses his feelings in his new book Digital Vertigo: How Today's Online Social Revolution Is Dividing, Diminishing, and Disorienting Us. Keen is known for his controversial opinion of the Web after writing The Cult of the Amateur, in which he warns of the harmful consequences of the Web 2.0 culture.
His latest book, however, targets social media and the negative impact that it is having on society. Describing himself as a "cheerful pessimist", Keen explains he is not against the Internet or social media sites - he is, in fact, very active on Twitter - but he does think that we, as a society, don't take it seriously enough.
I recognize that the Web is the dominant reality… of the 21st century, but that doesn't mean that we should accept it unthinkingly ... As we retreat from real social things, and as we retreat from readily watching or listening to other people's ideas – music, movies, books, we seem to be more and more preoccupied with broadcasting ourselves. And that, I think, is deeply narcissistic and ultimately doesn't reflect well on ourselves as individuals or collectively as a species.Pondering on the seriousness Keen presupposes, we can only imagine the long-term impact of society's dependence on social media and on human interaction as a whole, but is the technological touch of the social media movement really in danger of making us any more anti-sociable than we already are? If this post survives the decades - which thanks to potential longevity the technology of the Internet gives, it just might - I can't help but think how our descendants will interpret our struggles with the way new technologies have changed the way we interact with each other.
– "Is Social Media Hurting Our Culture?" (WebProNews)
After all, here we are, a shout from their past, saying they are in danger of becoming anti-sociable digital yobs with no clue on how to interact with each other in real terms, because they have their heads stuck down a virtual lavatory of videos gone viral, their young minds flushed down a stream of violent viscosity and vitriolic verbiage. Are we right to worry? Or are these merely the perfunctory noises made by the passing of the old guard?
Only their time will tell, not ours, but more certain is that preceding centuries will have, no doubt, voiced similar fears over us in their time. For the more we advance outwards, the more we look inwards. That isn't to say this devalues Keen's point, merely slots it into the correct context that, no matter what the future brings, there will always be those who will want to question, rightly or wrongly, any or all changes made by their society.
The fact remains, however, that societies survive because they get an upgrade. Technological advancements will come and be surpassed in turn, and Keen's point will continue to be asked by succeeding generations: Is each technological advancement simply extensions of our behaviour, as good as bad as we make them, or are these extensions of electronic capability becoming so advanced as to downgrade our natural evolution for survival - disconnecting us from our human selves more than ever?
Published 8 January, 2011 31 July, 2012
