essay internet kills communication

Internet kills communication

Table of Contents

Introduction

A famous quote by Peter Drucker, “the most important thing in communication is hearing that which is not said”, remains a very relevant dictum in communication today. In the recent times, the internet has become a very important communication tool. However, internet kills communication since the young people are much involved in the social media where the language used is largely informal and destructive.

Firstly, the internet hugely affects the young generation. Owing to the much exposure that the young people have to technology, most of the young people spend their time online in the social platforms that over virtual connections. As such, there is little of real connections that happen in face to face communication that may reveal an individual’s expressions or body language and even tone (Hammick, & Lee, 2014). The virtual communications deny individuals such fundamental aspects of communication. Consequently, communications deteriorate and people get used to the social media way where short languages, emojis which may never really communicate the actual feelings that one would achieve with real communication. The texts written on the internet messaging platforms lack inflection and are often susceptible to biased interpretation by the reader (Gust, 2016). In the end, the social skills of the young people are affected which may include both interpersonal and communication skills.

Secondly, owing to the virtual connections, people begin to lie when having communications on the internet platforms. Similarly, the communications that occur on the internet sites are susceptible to a lot of misinterpretations (Sweetser, 2014). A persons message may be taken out of context and thus leading to miscommunication. In other instances, when individuals are in conflict the internet platforms have offered avenues for pseudo accounts or anonymity that have been used to attack others leading to cyber bullying (TEng, 2014). Moreover, in many cases, words have lost their value in social media. They are mostly used to cause harm to individuals further creating more conflict (Wall, 2015).

Thirdly, with the advent of internet, individuals have created virtual worlds which makes their lives largely depended on the technological devices (Lipschultz, 2017). There is an increasing overreliance on the electronic communication devices that further lead to addiction. Such addictions just like other forms of addiction have adverse effects in individuals’ lives some of which include sleep deprivation, antisocial behaviors among others (Young, 2015). Today most individuals have their smartphones in their hands most of the time. According to Lipsman, (2017), a study carried out by Cross-Platform Future in Focus details that, on average, an individual American adult spends about 2 hours, 51 munities on their phones every single day. In fact, Cross-Platform Future in Focus estimates the average total time to about 86 hours every month spent on a smartphone. Such amounts of time spent in a virtual world of sort causes a significant reduction in personal communications that individuals would have.

Although the internet has negative effects on individual’s personal communication, it has also benefited personal communications through facilitating new connections and friendships (Zheng, Spears, Luptak, & Wilby, 2015). Nonetheless, communication at personal level has been lost since people no longer have the interactions they have always had before the advent of the internet.  The virtual connections offered by the internet can be largely falls and in some cases put individuals at risk of harm. Needful to point out, the internet was an invention that was aimed at enhancing communication, however, it has come with other communication challenges that humanity has to deal with.

Owing to the above points, it is therefore prudent to understand that personal communication is the best way that one could appreciate the details that one seeks to convey in their message. Although there are other well documented research studies on skills for internet communication the overall communication is reduced when it happens on the internet platform.

• Gust, B. (2016).  User-oriented appropriateness: a theoretical model of written text on Facebook for improved PR communication  (Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford).
• Hammick, J. K., & Lee, M. J. (2014). Do shy people feel less communication apprehension online? The effects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality characteristics and communication outcomes.  Computers in Human Behavior ,  33 , 302-310.
• Lipschultz, J. H. (2017).  Social media communication: Concepts, practices, data, law and ethics . Taylor & Francis.
• Lipsman, A. (2017, March 31). Mobile Matures as the Cross-Platform Era Emerges .
• Sweetser, K. D. (2014). Ethics, Reputation, and Social Media.  Ethical practice of social media in public relations , 205.
• TEng, T. M. J. C. E. (2014). Facebook and Social identity: creating or deStroying relationShipS?.  ARGUMENTOR 3 , 339.
• Wall, D. S. (2015). The Internet as a conduit for criminal activity.
• Young, K. (2015). The evolution of Internet addiction disorder. In  Internet addiction  (pp. 3-17). Springer, Cham.
• Zheng, R., Spears, J., Luptak, M., & Wilby, F. (2015). Understanding older adults’ perceptions of Internet use: An exploratory factor analysis.  Educational Gerontology ,  41 (7), 504-518.
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Science
• Cyber Crime
• Cyber Security
• Data Analysis
• Internet Of Things

• PUBLICATIONS
• SCRUTINY TOOLBOX

How the internet can harm us, and what can we do about it?

The internet has received much negative news coverage in recent years.

Written by Gianluca Quaglio,

The internet has received much negative news coverage in recent years. Articles focus on major privacy scandals and security breaches, the proliferation of fake news, rampant harmful behaviours like cyber-bullying, cyber-theft, revenge porn, the exchange of child porn and internet predation, internet addiction, and the negative effects of the internet on social relations and social cohesion. Nevertheless, some 87 % of European households have internet access at home, and 65 % use mobile devices to access the internet. Europeans aged 16 to 24 years spend 168 minutes per day on mobile internet, dropping to 30 minutes for 55 to 64-year olds. Around 88 % of 15 to 24-year olds use social media, 80 % on a daily basis.

While the social and economic benefits of the internet cannot be denied, some of these developments can severely affect such European values as equality, respect for human rights and democracy. Technology companies are under increasing pressure to mitigate these harmful effects, and politicians and opinion leaders are advocating drastic measures.

The recently published STOA study on ‘Harmful internet use’ covers the damage associated with internet use on individuals’ health, wellbeing and functioning, and the impact on social structures and institutions. While the study does not attempt to cover all possible societal harm relating to the internet, Part I focuses on one specific cause of harm, internet addiction, and Part II covers a range of harmful effects on individuals and society that are associated with internet use. The report concludes with policy options for their prevention and mitigation.

Other studies have already extensively discussed some harmful effects, and these are already subject to a history of policy actions. These include harm to privacy, harm related to cybersecurity and cybercrime, and damage resulting from digital divides. In contrast, this study covers the less-studied but equally important harmful effects that concern individuals’ health, wellbeing and functioning, the quality of social structures and institutions, and equality and social inclusion.

Internet addiction and problematic internet use                             

Internet addiction and problematic internet use prevalence rates vary across studies and countries. The noteworthy discrepancy in prevalence estimates has a number of causes, including the different populations studied, as well as the various diagnostic tools and assessment criteria utilised. With this in mind, it appears that roughly 4 % of European adolescents demonstrate a pathological use of the internet that affects their life and health, while 13 % of adolescents engage in maladaptive behaviour when using the internet. Similar numbers are reported for adults.

Part I of the study focuses on generalised internet addiction, online gaming addiction, and online gambling addiction. Clinical presentations, patient profiling, comorbidities, instruments, interventions, and prognoses are different across these three potential addiction disorders. The study states that the individual, cultural and media-use context significantly contributes to the experience and severity of internet addiction.

The study proposes a set of preventive actions, and evidence to support future policies . It states that offering information, screening tools and campaigns to students in secondary schools and at universities regarding internet-use-related addiction problems can help, especially regarding gaming addiction in adolescent populations. This will require allocating research and resources for schools and their staff, and for families, as well as the establishment of working relationships with health professionals and services.

Harmful social and cultural effects associated with internet use

Part II of the study identifies a number of different harmful social and cultural effects associated with internet use. The evidence points to the occurrence of significant damage to both individuals and society. Some of these harmful effects are described briefly below:

Information overload: Having too much information to be able to adequately understand an issue or make effective decisions. Information overload is associated with loss of control, feelings of being overwhelmed, reduced intellectual performance, and diminished job satisfaction. Studies show that information overload affects up to 20-30% of people.

Damage to social relationships: Extensive internet use, of social media in particular, is correlated with loneliness and social isolation. Intimate relationships can be degraded by internet use, particularly due to viewing online pornography. Malicious online behaviour, particularly cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking and online predation, affects a significant percentage of internet users.

Impaired public/private boundaries: The way in which the internet and smartphones blur the distinction between private and public, and between different spheres of life, including work, home life and leisure, harms the boundaries between people’s public and private lives. Harmful effects that can result from such permeations include loss of quality of life, lack of privacy, decreased safety and security, and harm to social relations – when friends and family members feel they are left behind by new technology.

Harmful effects on cognitive development: Empirical evidence suggests that internet use can have both positive and negative impacts on cognitive development, depending on the person and the circumstances. There is evidence that children’s cognitive development can be damaged by prolonged internet use, including the development of memory skills, attention span, abilities for critical reasoning, language acquisition, reading, and learning abilities. More research is however needed to draw more reliable conclusions.

Damage to communities: Many off-line communities suffer through the partial migration of human activities – shopping, commerce, socialising, leisure activities, professional interactions – to the internet. Online communities sometimes extend off-line communities and sometimes replace them. They are often inadequate replacements, however, as they do not possess some of the valuable or the strongest qualities of off-line communities, and communities may consequently suffer from impoverished communication, incivility, and a lack of trust and commitment.

The study identifies a number of broad policy options for preventing and mitigating these harmful effects. They include, among other things:

• promoting technology that better protects social institutions, stimulating or requiring tech companies to introduce products and services that better protect social institutions and internet users;
• education about the internet and its consequences;
• stronger social services support for internet users: this policy option involves strengthening social services dedicated to internet users to prevent or mitigate harmful effects such as internet addition, antisocial online behaviour or information overload;
• incentivising or requiring employers to develop policies that protect workers against harmful effects of work-related internet use, such as information overload and the blurring of lines between public and private life;
• establishing governmental units and multi-stakeholder platforms at EU level,to address the problems of the internet’s harmful social and cultural effects.

Problematic use of the internet (PUI) research network

Finally, in relation to internet-caused damage, it is worth mentioning the recent article published by the European Science-Media Hub (ESMH) on the European Problematic Use of Internet (PUI) research network. The project, funded by the European Commission, gathers over 120 psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists, with the objective of reaching a better definition of diagnostic criteria, the role of genetics and personality traits, and the brain-based mechanisms behind internet related disorders.

Scientific Foresight (STOA)

Linking tech, science & policy: stoa gears up for the 10th parliamentary term, mental health: what is the eu doing for mental health, eu finances: is next generation eu delivering | eprs policy roundtable, european parliament plenary session – october ii 2024, parliament’s confirmation hearings of the commissioners-designate, beef and soy imports from south america – answering citizens’ concerns, european parliament plenary session – october i 2024, apply for a robert schuman traineeship in the eprs, economic outlook quarterly, world maritime day 2024 celebrates ‘navigating the future: safety first’, eu budget 2025, european parliament plenary session – september 2024.

Comments are closed for this post.

• What Europe does for me

EU legislation in progress

Download the EPRS App

• EP Plenary Sessions
• Cost of Non-Europe reports
• Latest Media
• Climate Change
• Russia's war on Ukraine

We write about

• Replies to campaigns from citizens
• What Europe does for you
• Economic and Social Policies
• EU Financing / Budgetary Affairs
• Institutional and Legal Affairs
• International Relations
• Policy Cycle
• Structural and Cohesion Policies

RSS Link to Scientific Foresight (STOA)

Social media.

• EP Think Tank
• Write to the European Parliament
• EP Library catalogue

Disclaimer and Copyright statement

The content of all documents (and articles) contained in this blog is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. For a comprehensive description of our cookie and data protection policies, please visit Terms and Conditions page. Copyright © European Union, 2014-2024. All rights reserved.

Discover more from Epthinktank

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• Cookie Policy

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

More information about our Cookie Policy .

The present website is hosted by WordPress.com, a service by Automattic. Automattic is a global company with thousands of servers located in several separate data centres around the world. While Automattic takes care of the security of the platform , we, the European Parliamentary Research Service, own the content of the blog. For more detailed information about the compliance of Automattic products and services with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), please see their dedicated page .

Data collected

We do not collect any personal data that could identify an individual user. The users that are registered in WordPress.com should consult wordpress.com terms of service . We do collect anonymised aggregate data for statistical purposes. The data collected for this purposes include: number of visits/visitors per page, the country of the user, and aggregate numbers of incoming and outgoing clicks.

We determine unique page counts by using a “hashed” version of the visitor’s IP address. The visitor’s full IP address is deleted from our logs after a little over a month. That timeframe is how long the data is needed in order to allow us to calculate your stats on a monthly basis and no longer.

We collect your email address only if you proactively requested to be notified about the updates on the blog. You can always contact us to remove your email address from our records or unsubscribe from the notification service.

We can also see your name and email address if you made a comment to one of our posts. We do not make the email address visible on the comment. Nevertheless, on request, we can delete your comments.

We collect cookies only to facilitate your browsing experience, such as enabling you to share our posts via social media or comment on the post. The majority of cookies will be used only if you are a registered WordPress.com user. In this case, you are bound to WordPress.com terms of service .

Some pages embed content from third parties. In this case, you will need to actively consent to their terms in order to see the content.

We do not collect cookies to show advertisement nor resell any information collected with cookies to third parties. Read more about the wordpress.com cookie policy and the way to control cookies on their dedicated page .

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation

What happens when we become too dependent on our mobile phones? According to MIT sociologist Sherry Turkle, author of the new book Reclaiming Conversation , we lose our ability to have deeper, more spontaneous conversations with others, changing the nature of our social interactions in alarming ways.

Turkle has spent the last 20 years studying the impacts of technology on how we behave alone and in groups. Though initially excited by technology’s potential to transform society for the better, she has become increasingly worried about how new technologies, cell phones in particular, are eroding the social fabric of our communities.

In her previous book, the bestselling Alone Together , she articulated her fears that technology was making us feel more and more isolated, even as it promised to make us more connected. Since that book came out in 2012, technology has become even more ubiquitous and entwined with our modern existence. Reclaiming Conversation is Turkle’s call to take a closer look at the social effects of cell phones and to re-sanctify the role of conversation in our everyday lives in order to preserve our capacity for empathy , introspection, creativity, and intimacy.

I interviewed Turkle by phone to talk about her book and some of the questions it raises. Here is an edited version of our conversation.

Jill Suttie: Your new book warns that cell phones and other portable communication technology are killing the art of conversation. Why did you want to focus on conversation, specifically?

Sherry Turkle: Because conversation is the most human and humanizing thing that we do. It’s where empathy is born, where intimacy is born—because of eye contact, because we can hear the tones of another person’s voice, sense their body movements, sense their presence. It’s where we learn about other people. But, without meaning to, without having made a plan, we’ve actually moved away from conversation in a way that my research was showing is hurting us.

JS: How are cell phones and other technologies hurting us?

ST: Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that during their last social interaction, they took out a phone, and 82 percent said that it deteriorated the conversation they were in. Basically, we’re doing something that we know is hurting our interactions.

I’ll point to a study. If you put a cell phone into a social interaction, it does two things: First, it decreases the quality of what you talk about, because you talk about things where you wouldn’t mind being interrupted, which makes sense, and, secondly, it decreases the empathic connection that people feel toward each other.

So, even something as simple as going to lunch and putting a cell phone on the table decreases the emotional importance of what people are willing to talk about, and it decreases the connection that the two people feel toward one another. If you multiply that by all of the times you have a cell phone on the table when you have coffee with someone or are at breakfast with your child or are talking with your partner about how you’re feeling, we’re doing this to each other 10, 20, 30 times a day.

JS: So, why are humans so vulnerable to the allure of the cell phone, if it’s actually hurting our interactions?

ST: Cell phones make us promises that are like gifts from a benevolent genie—that we will never have to be alone, that we will never be bored, that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be, and that we can multitask, which is perhaps the most seductive of all. That ability to put your attention wherever you want it to be has become the thing people want most in their social interactions—that feeling that you don’t have to commit yourself 100 percent and you can avoid the terror that there will be a moment in an interaction when you’ll be bored.

Actually allowing yourself a moment of boredom is crucial to human interaction and it’s crucial to your brain as well. When you’re bored, your brain isn’t bored at all—it’s replenishing itself, and it needs that down time.

We’re very susceptible to cell phones, and we even get a neurochemical high from the constant stimulation that our phones give us.

I’ve spent the last 20 years studying how compelling technology is, but you know what? We can still change. We can use our phones in ways that are better for our kids, our families, our work, and ourselves. It’s the wrong analogy to say we’re addicted to our technology. It’s not heroin.

JS: One thing that struck me in your book was that many people who you interviewed talked about the benefits of handling conflict or difficult emotional issues online. They said they could be more careful with their responses and help decrease interpersonal tensions. That seems like a good thing. What’s the problem with that idea?

ST: It was a big surprise when I did the research for my book to learn how many people want to dial down fighting or dealing with difficult emotional issues with a partner or with their children by doing it online.

But let’s take the child example. If you do that with your child, if you only deal with them in this controlled way, you are basically playing into your child’s worst fear—that their truth, their rage, their unedited feelings, are something that you can’t handle. And that’s exactly what a parent shouldn’t be saying to a child. Your child doesn’t need to hear that you can’t take and accept and honor the intensity of their feelings.

People need to share their emotions—I feel very strongly about this. I understand why people avoid conflict, but people who use this method end up with children who think that the things they feel aren’t OK. There’s a variant of this, which is interesting, where parents give their children robots to talk to or want their children to talk to Siri, because somehow that will be a safer place to get out their feelings. Again, that’s exactly what your child doesn’t need.

JS: Some studies seem to show that increased social media use actually increases social interaction offline. I wonder how this squares with your thesis?

ST: How I interpret that data is that if you’re a social person, a socially active person, your use of social media becomes part of your social profile. And I think that’s great. My book is not anti-technology; it’s pro-conversation. So, if you find that your use of social media increases your number of face-to-face conversations, then I’m 100 percent for it.

Another person who might be helped by social media is someone who uses it for taking baby steps toward meeting people for face-to-face conversations. If you’re that kind of person, I’m totally supportive. 

I’m more concerned about people for whom social media becomes a kind of substitute, who literally post something on Facebook and just sit there and watch whether they get 100 likes on their picture, whose self-worth and focus becomes dictated by how they are accepted, wanted, and desired by social media.

And I’m concerned about the many other situations in which you and I are talking at a dinner party with six other people, and everyone is texting at the meal and applying the “three-person rule”—that three people have to have their heads up before anyone feels it’s safe to put their head down to text. In this situation, where everyone is both paying attention and not paying attention, you end up with nobody talking about what’s really on their minds in any serious, significant way, and we end up with trivial conversations, not feeling connected to one another.

JS: You also write about how conversation affects the workplace environment. Aren’t conversations just distractions to getting work done? Why support conversation at work?

More on Technology

Read Jill Suttie's review of Reclaiming Conversation .

How healthy are your online and offline social networks? Take the quiz !

five ways to build caring community on social media .

Take Christine Carter's advice to use technology intentionally and stop checking your freaking phone .

Learn how technology is shaping romance .

ST: In the workplace, you need to create sacred spaces for conversation because, number one, conversation actually increases the bottom line. All the studies show that when people are allowed to talk to each other, they do better—they’re more collaborative, they’re more creative, they get more done.

It’s very important for companies to make space for conversation in the workplace. But if a manager doesn’t model to employees that it’s OK to be off of their email in order to have conversation, nothing is going to get accomplished. I went to one workplace that had cappuccino machines every 10 feet and tables the right size for conversation, where everything was built for conversation. But people were feeling that the most important way to show devotion to the company was answering their email immediately. You can’t have conversation if you have to be constantly on your email. Some of the people I interviewed were terrified to be away from their phones. That translates into bringing your cell phone to breakfast and not having breakfast with your kids.

JS: If technology is so ubiquitous yet problematic, what recommendations do you make for keeping it at a manageable level without getting so hooked?

ST: The path ahead is not a path where we do without technology, but of living in greater harmony with it. Among the first steps I see is to create sacred spaces—the kitchen, the dining room, the car—that are device-free and set aside for conversation. When you have lunch with a friend or colleague or family member, don’t put a phone on the table between you. Make meals a time when you are there to listen and be heard.

When we move in and out of conversations with our friends in the room and all the people we can reach on our phones, we miss out on the kinds of conversations where empathy is born and intimacy thrives. I met a wise college junior who spoke about the “seven-minute rule”: It takes seven minutes to know if a conversation is going to be interesting. And she admitted that she rarely was willing to put in her seven minutes. At the first “lull,” she went to her phone. But it’s when we stumble, hesitate, and have those “lulls” that we reveal ourselves most to each other.

So allow for those human moments, accept that life is not a steady “feed,” and learn to savor the pace of conversation—for empathy, for community, for creativity.

About the Author

Jill Suttie

Jill Suttie, Psy.D. , is Greater Good ’s former book review editor and now serves as a staff writer and contributing editor for the magazine. She received her doctorate of psychology from the University of San Francisco in 1998 and was a psychologist in private practice before coming to Greater Good .

You May Also Enjoy

How to Get Your Kid to Talk about What Happened at School

Why Won’t Your Teen Talk To You?

Talking to Strangers, and Other things that Bring Good Luck

Nine Tips for Talking With Kids About Trauma

The Place of Talk in a Digital Age

Should We Talk to Young Children about Race?

Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay

Introduction, impact of internet on society, a case for the internet, works cited.

The internet is arguably the most influential invention made in the last half a century. This creation has had immense impact on the world with person’s personal and professional lives being influenced by this innovation. The internet has invaded most aspects of human life with its use spanning from industries as diverse as health care provision to mining and manufacturing.

This wide application of the internet has made it hard for people to envision a world without the internet. For most people, it would be impossible to operate efficiently if the internet was not there to provide quick and effective communication. However, the internet has contributed to some negative outcomes in society due to its attributes of efficiency and ease of information provision. This paper will argue that the world would be a better place if the internet had not been invented.

The information available on the internet has contributed to the rise in violence in our society. The internet contains a wide array of information on all topics. Some of the information contained pertains to violence and how a person can engage in acts of violence. There are websites that offer in-depth information on how to create a homemade bomb or even how to convert a handgun into a semi-automatic weapon.

This information has been used by various individuals to carry out acts of violence against members of the society (Schmitt 1). In the recent Boston bomb attack, the perpetrators used the internet to gain information on how to turn pressure cookers into deadly bombs that were used to carry out the terror attacks. The Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik who killed 77 people and injured at least 110 more is reported to have used the internet in his preparation for the brutal attacks.

Proponents of the internet argue that individuals with violent tendencies will find a way to carry out attacks even without the help of the internet. They argue that a person who wants to commit a crime can get the information they need from books or use traditional weapons such as guns and knives. While this is true, the internet has made it easier for the violent people to access dangerous information with little effort. This has increased the danger that such individuals pose to our society.

The internet has contributed to making the world an unsafe place by making it easy for international terrorists to operate. The prevalence of global acts of terror in the last decade has made international terrorism the greatest danger to world security.

Terror attacks in major cities such as New York, London, and Madrid have caused world leaders to recognize the devastating effect of international terrorism. The internet has assisted in the growth and development of international terrorist organizations. Schmitt reveals that the internet plays a role in the recruitment and radicalization of terrorists in countries all over the world (1).

For example, radical clerics have been known to post radical sermons online and gain many followers all over the world. The radical messages have contributed to the prevalence of “home grown” terrorists who communicate hateful messages through the internet. In the Boston bombing incident, the two brothers are reported to have been influenced and radicalized by the Islamic Cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki whose sermons provided the motivation for their deadly attacks (Schmitt 1).

The al-Qaeda terror network is known to use the internet extensively to spread its hateful messages and inspire acts of terrorism against Western targets. Without the internet, terrorists would not have such an efficient medium through which to spread their messages. It is therefore conceivable that the world would be safer without the internet to facilitate the spread of international terrorism.

The internet has given governments the tools with which to engage in pervasive surveillance of their citizens. While we live in an open community where freedom is guaranteed, the government may want to keep track of its citizens. In the past, attempts by the governments to engage in surveillance have been met with resistance.

However, the internet has provided an efficient and cheap means for the governments to track people and keep records of their communication often without their consent. By gathering information from sources such as Internet Service Providers, search engines, and Social Networking Sites, the government can build profiles of individuals and invade privacy. A report by the CNN ominously warns that thanks to the internet, “our surveillance state is efficient beyond the wildest dreams of George Orwell” (Schneier 1).

The internet has made it possible for a person’s private information to be accessed and stored by third parties. The US government has engaged in spying activities on its own citizens without their consent or knowledge. The internet has therefore contributed to the dramatic infringement of personal privacy by the government and made our society less free.

The internet has played a part in the prevalence of moral decay by providing individuals with decadent material. The internet is the largest repository of information in the world. Among this information is material of a questionable moral caliber such as pornography. A report by the BBC states that four in every ten individuals who use the internet are subjected to pornographic material (1).

This report is corroborated by the fact that the pornography industry has grown into a multi-million dollar industry with many pornography websites appearing online. Pornography is damaging to the society since it leads to a pervasion of sexual acts and promotes acts of violence such as rape.

Reports indicate that many convicted rapists and child molesters cite pornography as a trigger to their damaging actions (BBC 1). Proponents of the internet argue that there was still decadent material in the society before the invention of the internet. They claim that photographic material could be obtained through magazines and even bootleg tapes. These claims are true since offensive material has been in the society since the invention of the printing press.

However, the spread of this material before the internet was restricted and it occurred in a regulated fashion. A report by the BBC reveals that since the arrival of the internet, “pornography is far more readily available and less regulated” (1). Without the internet, it would be harder for people to access pornographic material. The society would therefore be protected from the negative effects of this decadent material.

Advocates of the internet assert that is has contributed to the growth and development of society. Industries and Businesses have benefited from improved efficiency and effectiveness due to the internet. Increased productivity in organizations has resulted in economic growth, which is a desirable outcome for the society.

The internet has also enhanced scientific research and innovation by making it easy for various professionals to work collaboratively through the internet. It has increased the research abilities of various professionals therefore contributing to the development of our society. Knut asserts that the internet has served as an enabler for all forms of innovation in the society (1). This positive attributes of the internet are all true and the prevalence of the internet has greatly affected societies and the economy.

However, it should be noted that innovation and research would still have occurred even without the presence of the internet. Economic growth and prosperity was in action for decades before the advent of the internet. What the internet has done is increase the rate at which economic growth and technological advancement has taken place in society. It would therefore be wrong to assume that there would be no development if the internet was not invented.

While the internet has been hailed as the “most important technology” developed, it has led to much harm to society. This paper has argued that the world would be a better place if the internet had not been invented. To buttress this assertion, the paper has highlighted how the internet has contributed to the rising insecurity and violence in the world. The internet has made it easy for international terrorism organizations to expand their influence.

It has noted that governments can infringe upon the freedom of their citizens more efficiently because of the internet. The paper has also highlighted the contribution that the internet has played to moral decay. However, the paper has also acknowledged the positive contributions that the internet has played in society. Even so, the positive contributions are outweighed by the negative influences that the internet has had. It can therefore be declared that the society would be better off if the internet had never been invented.

BBC. The internet and Pornography . 2011. Web.

Knut, Blind. The Internet as Enabler for New Forms of Innovation: New Challenges for Research. 2011. Web.

Schmitt, Eric. Boston Plotters Said to Initially Target July 4 for Attack . 2013. Web.

Schneier, Bruce. The internet is a surveillance State . 2013. Web.

• The Sociological Study of Religion
• Modern-Day Heroes in Society
• Pornography and Ethics
• An Argumentative Essay: How to Write
• Writing Argumentative Essay With Computer Aided Formulation
• About the Sociology of Religion
• What is sociology of religion
• The Social Organization of Religion
• Religion Social Organization
• Personal and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 19). Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/has-the-internet-had-an-overall-positive-or-negative-effect-on-the-society/

"Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 19 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/has-the-internet-had-an-overall-positive-or-negative-effect-on-the-society/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay'. 19 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/has-the-internet-had-an-overall-positive-or-negative-effect-on-the-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/has-the-internet-had-an-overall-positive-or-negative-effect-on-the-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay." December 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/has-the-internet-had-an-overall-positive-or-negative-effect-on-the-society/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

The dying art of conversation – has technology killed our ability to talk  face-to -face?

Senior Lecturer, Media, Communication and Culture, Leeds Beckett University

Disclosure statement

Melanie Chan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Leeds Beckett University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

What with Facetime, Skype , Whatsapp and Snapchat, for many people, face-to-face conversation is used less and less often.

These apps allow us to converse with each other quickly and easily – overcoming distances, time zones and countries. We can even talk to virtual assistants such as Alexa, Cortana or Siri – commanding them to play our favourite songs, films, or tell us the weather forecast.

Often these ways of communicating reduce the need to speak to another human being. This has led to some of the conversational snippets of our daily lives now taking place mainly via technological devices . So no longer do we need to talk with shop assistants, receptionists, bus drivers or even coworkers, we simply engage with a screen to communicate whatever it is we want to say.

In fact, in these scenarios, we tend to only speak to other people when the digital technology does not operate successfully. For instance, human contact occurs when we call for an assistant to help us when an item is not recognised at the self-service checkout .

And when we have the ability to connect so quickly and easily with others using technological devices and software applications it is easy to start to overlook the value of face-to-face conversation. It seems easier to text someone rather than meet with them.

Bodily cues

My research into digital technologies indicates that phrases such as “word of mouth” or “keeping in touch” point to the importance of face-to-face conversation . Indeed, face-to-face conversation can strengthen social ties: with our neighbours, friends, work colleagues and other people we encounter during our day.

It acknowledges their existence, their humanness, in ways that instant messaging and texting do not. Face-to-face conversation is a rich experience that involves drawing on memories, making connections, making mental images, associations and choosing a response. Face-to-face conversation is also multisensory: it’s not just about sending or receiving pre-programmed trinkets such as likes, cartoon love hearts and grinning yellow emojis.

When having a conversation using video you mainly see another person’s face only as a flat image on a screen. But when we have a face-to-face conversation in real life, we can look into someone’s eyes, reach out and touch them. We can also observe the other person’s body posture and the gestures they use when speaking – and interpret these accordingly. All these factors, contribute to the sensory intensity and depth of the face-to-face conversations we have in daily life.

Speaking to machines

Sherry Turkle , professor of social studies of science and technology, warns that when we first “speak through machines, [we] forget how essential face-to-face conversation is to our relationships, our creativity, and our capacity for empathy”. But then “we take a further step and speak not just through machines but to machines”.

In many ways, our everyday lives now involve a blend of face-to-face and technologically mediated forms of communication. But in my teaching and research I explain how digital forms of communication can supplement, rather than replace face-to-face conversation.

At the same time though, it is also important to acknowledge that some people value online communication because they can express themselves in ways they might find difficult through face-to-face conversation.

Look up from your phone

Gary Turk , is a spoken word poet whose poem Look Up illustrates what is at stake by becoming entranced by technological ways of communicating at the expense of connecting with others face-to-face.

Turk’s poem draws attention to the rich, sensory aspects of face-to-face communication, valuing bodily presence in relation to friendship, companionship and intimacy. The central idea running through Turk’s evocative poem is that screen-based devices consume our attention while distancing us from the bodily sense of being with others.

Ultimately the sound, touch, smell and observation of bodily cues we experience when having a face-to-face conversation cannot be fully replaced by our technological devices. Communicating and connecting with others through face-to-face discussion is valuable because it is not something that can be edited, paused or replayed.

So next time you’re deciding between human or machine at the supermarket checkout or whether to get up from your desk and walk to another office to talk to a colleague – rather than sending them an email – it might be worth following Turk’s advice and engaging with the human rather than the screen.

• Social media
• Body language
• Text messages
• Face-to-face
• Conversations

Professor in Physiotherapy

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Project Manager – Contraceptive Development

Editorial Internship

Integrated Management of Invasive Pampas Grass for Enhanced Land Rehabilitation

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Information Science and Technology Internet

What If There Was No Internet: Exploring the Implications

Table of contents, communication dynamics, shifts in education and information dissemination, economic transformations, impact on personal experiences and societal structures.

• Standage, T. (1998). The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-line Pioneers. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Crawford, M. B. (2014). The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. Penguin.
• Pink, D. H. (2012). To Sell Is Human: The Surprising Truth About Moving Others. Riverhead Books.
• Carr, N. (2010). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. WW Norton & Company.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Mobile Phone
• Data Analysis
• Effects of Technology
• Traffic Congestion

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.