After reading the Daily Mail article “Facebook users are
committing ‘virtual identity suicide’ in droves and quitting the site over
privacy and addiction fears” posted in the explorations and provocations folder
(woah, mouthful), I couldn’t help but think about the image I used in class a
couple of weeks ago:
Although internet addiction was one of the lowest categories
chosen by respondents in the article, it still made it in the headlines. This
is probably because the word “addiction” is eye-catching and a good grab-in for
a story. In this instance, I believe the word addiction is extremely accurate.
Internet addictions have been worsened due to mobile devices. People
incessantly check their phones for social media updates, carrying technology
around with them as if it’s an extra limb, much like Slack’s conceptualization
of the cyborg body. Social media use should not feel like a need. Internet (maybe even technology)
addiction is exacerbated by the young age in which children start becoming
reliant upon technologies. In the words of Ellen DeGeneres, kids needs naps, not apps.
#preach
Granted, technologies also have positive value. Technology
has the capacity to do great things in education, medicine, and research.
However, I firmly believe “everything in moderation.” Social media use, on a
whole, has surpassed moderate—resulting in people “needing” to pop some
Facebook or Twitter or Instagram. Simple seem the times when parents received
notes from the Harper Valley PTA complaining about simple wardrobe concerns.
(Anyone know the reference?
Great tune…)
I personally think more people should commit virtual
identity suicide. My sophomore year of university, I committed virtual identity
suicide for about six months (before pathetically crawling back to it after
having joined the Geneseo softball team and wanting to be part of the Facebook
group). Social media use has become so ingrained in our society it is leaking
into our real and tangible activities. When people go out to eat at a
restaurant they should be talking to each other, not texting from two feet
away, not checking social media, not updating their status, and definitely not
taking pictures of their food. #InstagramHusbands.
And with this last image I will leave you with the question:
What is the world coming to….
Sami, you raise some interesting points about virtual identity suicide. In what follows, I want to extend your discussion about social media and addiction by refining one of your descriptive claims and challenging your normative conclusion. Rather than focus on social media in general, I want to take this opportunity to explore Facebook addiction in particular.
ReplyDeleteIn order to begin this discussion, we need to clearly outline what is meant by “Facebook addiction”. In their work on addiction, Torsheim, Brunborg, and Pallesen (2012) identify six core components of Facebook addiction: salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse. Torsheim, Brunborg, and Pallesen note that the negative consequences of Facebook addiction include poorer quality of sleep, a “decrease in real-life communities, worsening of academic performance, and relationship problems” (p. 503).
We are now better positioned to explore your claim that “internet addictions have been worsened due to mobile devices.” Before proceeding, however, let us refine your hypothesis by focusing on the particular case of Facebook addiction and smartphone usage. While this issue is ultimately an empirical matter (and would thus require us to operationalize the variables in your claim), we can nonetheless make an educated prediction about your hypothesis. The concept of “affordance” is helpful here. Given that smartphones afford users with the opportunity to be “always on, always connected” (a slogan used by RIM in the early days of Blackberry), it is reasonable to expect that smartphone users who have the Facebook app installed on their phone to experience an increase in the “salience” metric of Facebook addiction. In other words, Facebook usage is more likely to be salient for smartphone users than non-smartphone users given that smartphones afford users the ability to stay “always on, always connected.” (Salience here refers to an activity that “dominates thinking and behaviour” (Torsheim, Brunborg, and Pallesen, 2012, p. 503).)
I also want to challenge your normative conclusion that “more people should commit virtual identity suicide.” I want to initially point out that this seems to contradict one of your other normative claims – “everything in moderation”. I suppose that you would respond by claiming “[s]ocial media use, on a whole, has surpassed moderate”. Even if we accept this proposition to be true, I do not think that the normative conclusion “virtual identity suicide” is necessarily warranted.
By reflecting on the ways that Facebook addiction is encouraged, we can begin to move towards using Facebook in moderation. Such a move would help mitigate some of the negative consequences of a Facebook addiction (e.g. poorer quality of sleep). In contrast, if we were to accept the conclusion that Facebook usage “on a whole, has surpassed moderate” and could not be reversed, we would be ascribing an undue amount of agency to Facebook; we would be adopting a technological determinist framework of sorts. One way that smartphone users could mitigate the salience of their Facebook use and/or addiction is by turning off Facebook notifications on their smartphone. In fact, I might go do that now.
I look forward to hearing what you (Sami) think of my response.
Here's a link to Torsheim, Brunborg, and Pallesen's study: http://www.amsciepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517
Could this analysis also be understood as a reliance on these technologies in terms of Frith’s concept of transactive memory? Frith argues that “People often rely on various technologies to store their memories” as the current advances in technology created a new means for people to locate facts (56). This causes humans to be less efficient on their own, and remember less specific information, but rather, remember where to locate the information. As humans, we have now become reliant on this technology, a further step towards complete addiction to these devices. If we can no longer function without these devices, what does this mean for future generations who will have even more technology to store memories and other information?
ReplyDeleteI think you drew out some interesting points about our addiction to Facebook and social media as a whole. It is definitely true that the majority of users feel a certain affective attachment to their phones, and consequently, have a difficult time separating themselves from it. However, I do think that this affective attachment brings many positive benefits (e.g. easier maintenance of a long distance relationship), just as it brings negative (e.g. poorer quality of sleep). The affective consequences of social media should not be ignored in a debate regarding whether or not it should be removed from our personal lives.
ReplyDeleteVery true Sami! I feel like that while using social media to communicate online we have lost the need and the skills to communicate in real life. Facebook has become too much of a mask that attempts to filter our imperfect selves and presents a less flawed picture online. But I also agree with Maria that almost all forms of technology have positive and negative aspects and that we humans have evolved to embrace technology and make it part of our lives. Having read about the disruptive influences of television in our past term, I hope that social media too will become something that we have a greater handle on.
ReplyDelete