Online Social Networking Versus 'Real Life'

As a 21^st Century kid I have spent a lot of my free time during my youth on MSN Messenger, Myspace and, more recently, Facebook (the latter of which is still my main procrastinating activity). I therefore feel that I am, along with many other people of my generation, far more equipped to judge how detrimental this has been to my social health than middle-aged journalists who seem to think that Facebook is some kind of moral panic destroying the lives of young people everywhere. The idea that these social networking sites, which have taken over from the old methods of communication which have worked perfectly well for many years, could actually be beneficial and a positive addition to the human lifestyle surely can’t be true, can it?

The thought first struck me that online communication is far more beneficial than the critics make out when one of my lecturers proudly said “I’m so pleased that I took touch-typing lessons, it’s so useful.” I had heard the phrase but I wasn’t entirely sure what touch-typing was, when it turned out that it was just the ability to type without looking at the keys I stole his thunder a little by saying “Oh, I can do that” to which most of the students present agreed. It would appear that all those hours on MSN Messenger has in fact taught me, and many others like me, a skill which previous generations not only had to take lessons in, but see as an achievement and something of great use in their lives.

The other benefit of social networking is how many friends I am able to keep up with. I’m sure that when a friend of mine moved to Scotland when we were aged 14 I would have long since lost touch with her if it weren’t for these new technologies. However, I stayed with her in Arbroath a couple of years ago thanks to Myspace and will be seeing her next week in Birmingham thanks to Facebook.

Don’t get me wrong, I do still think old methods of communication have their value. I have a friend who I have known all my life but we have lived about two hours away from each other since we were quite young. Online social networking has helped us keep in touch but we also enjoy writing and sending each other letters. There’s something more personal about a letter and something exciting about received one in the post, the sort of excitement a new notification on Facebook doesn’t quite achieve.

In the case of online social networking versus ‘real life’ my opinion is that sites such as Facebook have enriched our lives. Their constant usage teaches us new skills and new ways of speaking. Critics state that no-one communicates in person as much as they used to but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Arranging to meet up with friends is made much easier with Facebook. We now have the ability to create events quickly and easily and arrange a catch-up with old friends you haven’t seen in a long time and probably never would have, had it not been for the availability of these sites. It is still important to keep our old ways of communication alive; letter writing, phone conversations and good old face-to-face contact, but just because these methods of communication exist doesn’t mean new methods are worthless, they just make all our a lives a little easier.

YouChoose

Regulating YouTube seems like a near impossible task and something that has sparked up a great deal of debate lately. Whilst discussing this issue in a seminar and hearing the views of some of the other people on my course it struck me that, in the future, the opinions of these people could be more than just opinions, they could be reality. The students on media courses today will be professionals in the media industry in a few years time. They will put their ideas into practice, deciding if sites such as YouTube will be regulated and they will be learning how to do this now.

So what are your opinions? Should YouTube be more restrictive about what users can and can’t post? Is it even possible and if so, is it even worth it? Already you are able to report videos which you deem to be inappropriate, a sort of public interactive regulation, and it is either removed or flagged as unsuitable for children, meaning that only those who are logged in as over 18s can view it. Of course these methods are flawed, inappropriate videos are not always flagged as such, if the right kind of ‘busy body’ never comes across them, and setting yourself up with a YouTube account where you appear to be a few years older than you actually are is not difficult. It is also possible to abuse these rights. My boyfriend and his cousin posted a video spoofing the Harry Potter films which was flagged as being unsuitable for children, presumably by someone opposed to this kind of Potter mockery. The video did not contain any X-rated material so he and his cousin appealed to YouTube and the restriction was removed, but it just goes to show that it is not a seamless system.

As far as I’m concerned, it is up to a child’s parents to regulate their internet usage, just as it is up to them to ensure their children do not gain access to inappropriate video games or films. The regulation of YouTube would limit the freedom the internet offers and where would we draw the line? What about blog sites such as this? Would we have to have everything we post approved by website regulators before anyone could read it? Have every Facebook post sent through a regulation office before it arrived on the intended recipient’s wall? Surely this would detract from the immediacy and freedom we are given on the internet? A place where everyone can become a part of the media industry, be it as a journalist, film-maker or photographer. The internet provides you with the opportunity to share your world with millions, no matter what it is you care to share, and that can’t be a bad thing, can it?...