Pah. Pah, pah and pah.
Oh, self satisfied popular rich busy people, how you mock!
This week I have tripped over the headline "social networking is bad for your health" in some way, shape or form at least 256 times. It's annoying, because every time I have to think to myself "well, no actually, I don't agree". Which gets wearing after the first 100 times.
What these items/articles/self opinionated rants suggest is that all people who partake in social networking are eschewing "real" activities in favour of social networking.
Yeah, right. Because people do that: "No, thanks, I don't want to go out tonight, I would rather stay in and update my status. Cheers!"
This goes back to (pet rant alert!!) the whiners that complain "don't you have anything better to do?" to which the answer is always "if I did, I would be doing it, stupid".
Why do we go out less? Dunno. The smoking ban has a bit to do with it, I'd guess, as does the recession. In my case children have a lot to do with it, but there's a high chance that my own procreation has had little impact on statistics, unless they are doing a 10 year survey of social habits of 25-35 year olds living in my postcode.
Anyway. Social networking does not replace real life. It replaces voids. It fills empty, lonely times (or times when your only companions are idiots, for example: at work) with friendly words. Blogging is chattering to nobody in particular and sometimes somebody in particular comes along and responds. Which is rather nice when you don't have anyone else to talk to, particularly if that person shares interests and tada! A new friend! How incredibly unhealthy!
Personally, some of the best friends I've got, and some of the best real life times had as well, have been through meeting people online. Social networking I think that's called. Hmm. It also allows me to keep in contact with ex colleagues etc that I had lost touch with, family that live far away, and even close friends that selfishly work during the time I'm free. I "know" people that I don't really know thanks to facebook.
It would be nice if all the media lovelies that probably haven't spent a day alone since they were 15 stopped to consider that those using social networking sites are benefitting from human interaction in lieu of NOTHING.
Yes, face to face probably is much better, but it is a teeny bit patronising to suggest that people choose not to be out there.
Huh.
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I was just talking about this with someone I only know on Facebook earlier. I too get annoyed when they describe a relationship such as ours as other than a "real" one, like you might have with a shopkeeper whose relationship with you is entirely based on you buying crisps from him.
Oh here's another irritating use of language from a news: "But there are also concerns that technology is being used as a replacement for genuine human interaction." Genuine!
Yeah, you could see the point if social networking was interacting with computers that generated comments. But why talking to people that talk back is a bad thing, I don't know. Socialising in person often consists of having way too much to drink and talking shite. Which would seem a little less beneficial than talking about everything with (mostly) sober people that are also at a computer.
I likes my virtual friends.
Post a Comment