Social Media’s Negative Effect on Human Agency

Social media is one of the most significant inventions in human history. This innovation allows people to connect and interact with each other over the internet. As such, it has become an object of high interest for all stakeholders, given how much it is woven into the social fabric. Different parties have different views, with the two main sides directly opposing each other. The two main disagreements over social media are whether it is beneficial or detrimental. There is merit to each party’s arguments, and this article explores the problem based on the research question: does social media serve us, or do we serve social media? This discussion will present arguments against social media, then those for social media, and finally, a discussion integrating both. A closer look at the evidence reveals that there is a middle ground between the contrasting views; social media serves us, and we serve social media.

The proponents of the view that social media is harmful, or, in other words, we serve social media, believe its negative effects outweigh the positive ones. A study by the Pew Research Center showed that two-thirds of Americans saw social media as more detrimental than not (Auxier, 2020). About one-quarter held a neutral view, while only 10% of the respondents thought it positively affected society (Auxier, 2020). Indeed, much of the rhetoric on this issue has leaned towards this idea, given the power a small object like one image can have on many people (Heimbuch, 2020). Numerous supportive publications, productions, and art depict humankind’s grim situation at the hands of technology.

Different entities link social media to anxiety and depression, concentration deficiency, attention-seeking behaviors, lower quality of social relationships, distraction, low self-esteem, stunted creativity, and other bleak physical and psychological outcomes (Rife, 2014). Individuals ascribing to this position believe social media forces us to deviate from our natural inclinations. This way, human beings may come to serve its interests and not their own. Under this view, technologies have inherent tendencies that lead to certain uses (Toronto Public Library, 2019). People are unknowingly absorbed into the cybersphere, and it comes to dictate their every action. This perspective finds itself at loggerheads with those holding that human beings have more agency than implied.

There is a substantial number of proponents for the agency of the human element in its interaction with social media. These individuals support their claims with their evidence, showing how social media is the scapegoat for human-originated ills (Manson, 2021). The basis of this argument is that social media was meant to connect individuals, so it is a tool rather than an entity in and of itself. It is the specific interaction between an individual, and a society larger than they are used to that is to blame for all the negative outcomes (Brown, 2018). Advocates here hold that people in bad psychological states are more likely to use social media negatively. They also present various criticisms of the methodologies used to arrive at the opposing conclusions, like the inadequacy of the research upon which the claims are based (Manson, 2021). Social media is the servitor, and its perceived effects are human-originated. However, still, there is a third perspective that integrates both points of view and is the position held by this paper.

The third point of view acknowledges social media and man’s ability to overcome each other. As Neil Postman puts it, every technology is a curse and a blessing (Postman, 2011). Whether it is the former or the latter depends on various factors like knowledge, awareness, and experience, among others (Postman, 2011). For instance, social media allows for the manipulation of the vulnerable, but it can also be used to instantaneously disseminate important information to a large audience (Brown, 2018). Social media is a technology that is here to stay, and the focus should be on how to live with it (Wittes & Chong, 2014). The implications of our continued integration with technology mean we have to consider what the future holds, especially in law and policy (Wittes & Chong, 2014). There is a direct relationship between human activity in the technology space and our outcomes, and the attention should be on how to ensure the good outweigh the bad.

Social media is one of the leading subjects of conversation in today’s society because of its ubiquity in the modern world. This technology was a natural consequence of the need to interact with each other irrespective of location, time, or distance, but it has recently come under scrutiny. It happens because of the lack of clarity on who is in charge, the technology, or the users. Proponents of the former view cite the negative physical and psychological effects of using this technology, while the proponents see it as a mirror reflecting human nature. A closer look at the arguments presented by both sides shows that both elements serve each other, based on the idea that technology is both good and bad, depending on various factors.

References

Auxier, B. (2020). 64% of Americans say social media have a mostly negative Effect on the way things are going in the U.S. today. Pew Research Center. Web.

Brown, J. (2018). Is social media bad for you? The evidence and the unknowns. BBC; BBC Future. Web.

Heimbuch, J. (2020). Episode 007: The 6 must-have shots for a photo essay. jaymiheimbuch.com. Web.

Manson, M. (2021). The real dangers of social media. Mark Manson. Web.

Rife, A. (2014). You should be aware of these 10 effects of social media on you. Lifehack; Lifehack. Web.

Toronto Public Library. (2019). Mark Kingwell: Neoliberal boredom and the interface | On Civil Society | June 26, 2019. Web.

Postman, N. (2011). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage.

Wittes, B., & Chong, J. (2014). Our cyborg future: Law and policy implications. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings.