This morning I answered the questions of a student who is completing a dissertation. One in particular struck me. "Television is often accused of 'lock up' people at home, turning people into spectators rather than active citizenship, the same criticism now beginning to be directed towards social networks accused of being tools that encourage young people to communicate through a filter and downplaying the importance of personal contact.
In this sense, believes the internet to define credible threat to democracy? "I replied and I thought that it is appropriate to write the answer here. The question is absolutely relevant and is perfect for a search on the media. It represents the opinion of a substantial part of the public, especially those who have never used the new media and who turns out to be eternally worried about the social skills of the "young", as if we were three-headed monster with low intellect and high susceptibility to sociopathy, as if the adults had never been "young" and in turn did not have fears, hopes, and looked for moments of solitude when desperate for companionship.
Social media does not diminish the importance of personal contact. Not at all. Indeed, praise him. Social media, when used without abuse (like all the tools and opportunities of this world), are facilitators of relationships as it had never happened before. Make it possible to be simultaneously in several places, more spaces, more size, more hierarchical positions, with multiple levels of involvement possible.
It also allows the exact opposite. I do not go to political meetings (because, perhaps, work), I can help the world writing on Wikipedia, I can put on the net people who need each other, I can follow flows of information from different sources and latitudes, I can study, I know. Or not.
Can I do what I want. In short, I can choose. This is the point that is rarely caught by the "apocalyptic": it seems that new media can raze what was there before. A story that we have already heard a thousand times: the TV had to kill the radio, the Internet would kill print media. It did not happen, never happen.
The only new and greater possibilities of choice, and therefore the quality level of the offer. Then there are those who do not want to choose and will comfortably sit and watch TV or buy always the same newspaper, who has always suspicious eyes on a screen (like myself). I do not doubt that Facebook can be an agent of change in anthropology, that Twitter would be more authoritative than the sum of the major national newspapers as a tool for finding information on the political crisis in the Maghreb, who read the private lives of my friends can be far more to remain fascinating to watch dramas, which follow Sanremo, Ballaro AnnoZero, the Serie A on updates of the network is also better than being in front of the TV.
But this is a problem or an opportunity? I am enthusiastic about social media because I can choose. Although they have no personal contact at the place where I live with my friends preferring some brilliant interlocutor who is top of the world. If I'm okay, I'm a misfit, or rather the "young" before going to the streets because they had better things to do and now there are more because broadband makes our lives much better and we do not have the slightest desire to waste time with people who do not interest us, we're bored with television, with songs that make us sick, lined with newspapers and incapable of analysis? Cara hearing care, the Internet is dangerous for democracy.
The danger is perceived by the rulers of all kinds: political, economic, power, position. Teaches the Maghreb, Iran and China also. Italy, in some ways, as well. Dear readers, let us case: who says that Facebook is dangerous? Certainly not you. 
In this sense, believes the internet to define credible threat to democracy? "I replied and I thought that it is appropriate to write the answer here. The question is absolutely relevant and is perfect for a search on the media. It represents the opinion of a substantial part of the public, especially those who have never used the new media and who turns out to be eternally worried about the social skills of the "young", as if we were three-headed monster with low intellect and high susceptibility to sociopathy, as if the adults had never been "young" and in turn did not have fears, hopes, and looked for moments of solitude when desperate for companionship.
Social media does not diminish the importance of personal contact. Not at all. Indeed, praise him. Social media, when used without abuse (like all the tools and opportunities of this world), are facilitators of relationships as it had never happened before. Make it possible to be simultaneously in several places, more spaces, more size, more hierarchical positions, with multiple levels of involvement possible.
It also allows the exact opposite. I do not go to political meetings (because, perhaps, work), I can help the world writing on Wikipedia, I can put on the net people who need each other, I can follow flows of information from different sources and latitudes, I can study, I know. Or not.
Can I do what I want. In short, I can choose. This is the point that is rarely caught by the "apocalyptic": it seems that new media can raze what was there before. A story that we have already heard a thousand times: the TV had to kill the radio, the Internet would kill print media. It did not happen, never happen.
The only new and greater possibilities of choice, and therefore the quality level of the offer. Then there are those who do not want to choose and will comfortably sit and watch TV or buy always the same newspaper, who has always suspicious eyes on a screen (like myself). I do not doubt that Facebook can be an agent of change in anthropology, that Twitter would be more authoritative than the sum of the major national newspapers as a tool for finding information on the political crisis in the Maghreb, who read the private lives of my friends can be far more to remain fascinating to watch dramas, which follow Sanremo, Ballaro AnnoZero, the Serie A on updates of the network is also better than being in front of the TV.
But this is a problem or an opportunity? I am enthusiastic about social media because I can choose. Although they have no personal contact at the place where I live with my friends preferring some brilliant interlocutor who is top of the world. If I'm okay, I'm a misfit, or rather the "young" before going to the streets because they had better things to do and now there are more because broadband makes our lives much better and we do not have the slightest desire to waste time with people who do not interest us, we're bored with television, with songs that make us sick, lined with newspapers and incapable of analysis? Cara hearing care, the Internet is dangerous for democracy.
The danger is perceived by the rulers of all kinds: political, economic, power, position. Teaches the Maghreb, Iran and China also. Italy, in some ways, as well. Dear readers, let us case: who says that Facebook is dangerous? Certainly not you.
No comments:
Post a Comment