The use of technology and social media as a primary way of communication has become increasingly popular as time progresses, to such an extent that it is altering the way in which people interact with one another in person. While many have come to accept this new version of communicating as normal, others believe that “the time we invest in superficial relationships comes at the expense of more profound ones” (Konnikova 3). I will say, there is definitely a difference in the ways that people interact with one another on social media rather than real life. In many cases, people are less likely to say what they actually mean when they are talking face to face, which could lead to a lack of meaning or depth in that interaction. While I can understand and appreciate the concept of social media relationships coming at the expense of in person interactions, I don’t agree with the idea that they are less profound. Many people meet their best friends, significant others, or even long distance family members on social media, and if they are lucky, they end up linking up with these people in person later in life. This opportunity for connection can be seen in the case of Phelps-Roper, a very sheltered and close minded young woman who changed her hateful ways due to the people she meets on social media. She starts off her story by being part of the hate group that is the Westboro Baptist Church. Becoming exposed to social media shows her that there are many different perspectives on important issues such as LGBTQ rights. In engaging with people on social media, she meets a man by the name of C.G. who becomes her first introduction to “people who [are] decent but not religious” (Chen 13). With each interaction they had, she became more and more detached from the ideals of Westboro, and started to see the world through a different lens. This extra insight to the world around her allowed Phelps-Roper to reevaluate what she believes in, and ultimately change her entire life due to these seemingly minor interactions. On the other hand, Konnikova argues that “until social media can replicate [physical] touch, it can’t fully replicate social bonding” (Konnikova 4), but that cannot be further from the truth. I see social media as a means for people to connect and meet one another, rather than the thing that keeps people separated from each other. The only instance where I believe Konnikova will be correct is when someone becomes solely dependent on social media as their only way of interaction and communication. When people find that balance between communicating with people over text versus actually talking to people, even if it is only on FaceTime, there won’t be a huge divide as Konnikova describes. Moderation and balance is a necessity within one’s social life, and once that is found, there will be no catastrophic differences between the way Gen Z interacts with people on and off the internet.
I do, however, agree with Konnikova when she talks about the possibility of “too much virtual interaction may subvert [the] education [of social awareness]” (Konnikova 5). It will become increasingly more difficult for people to meet one another in person if they only know how to communicate over the internet. While I believe that social media can create some of the most important relationships in a person’s life, I do understand the necessity and value of social awareness in real life. People need to know how to be conscious of others’ tone, body language, eye contact, and so much more when communicating in person, all of which are lost when using social media. One of the most dangerous things about social media is the ability for anyone to say anything they want without consequence, and many of these things they would never say in person. By hiding behind a keyboard, they are able to ignore the feelings of others, as they are simply reading their words on a screen. In the instance of Phelps-Roper, people started to realize that “relating to hateful people on a human level was the best way to deal with them”, and they were finally able to make her, as well as other individuals, see things from another perspective (Chen 9). In other words, reactive responses to hateful people don’t lead to much good. These sorts of communication tactics have previously been learned from in person interactions and currently do not have any other way of being taught, but this could very likely change as social media progresses through time. When people take time to plan out their ideas before they blast them onto the internet, there is a great possibility that a helpful, insightful conversation will come out of it. The ability to have conversations online allows people to think about what they want to say before they say it, while simultaneously being able to listen to the opinions of others and learn from them.
b) I notice that I rely largely on pointing words as well as repeating my key points very often throughout my writing. I repeat words like “social media” and “communication” on more than one occasion throughout these two paragraphs, as they are the main focus of my paper. I also tend to use words such as “while” more than a few times in order to transition from one argument to its counter argument.
c) The two points in these paragraphs that I believe needed to be changed are in bold. I added the first idea in bold to explain what I meant when I said “this”. By providing that extra level of context, I was able to make my sentence easier to understand and it created a better flow. The second bolded sentence I added was to create a smoother transition between two thoughts. In doing so, I was able to make my sentences and ideas flow more seamlessly.
