social implications of the Internet

In the Bargh and McKenna article, the authors quote another writer, Manasian, as saying "(The Internet and related technologies) will change almost every aspect of our lives- private, social, cultural, economic and political...because (they) deal with the very essence of human society, communication between people." This quote effectively surmises what most of the authors in this weeks readings are getting at, the fact that Internet has revolutionized communication and access to knowledge for those who have the privilege of using it.

I agree with the authors of the Internet and Social Life when they say that the Internet is breakthrough in communication technology because aspects of all previous technologies and synthesizes them into one medium. It can operate as a person-to-person communication tool, revolutionizing interpersonal communication, and it can be used as a mass media tool. The most revolutionizing aspect is that the lines between what used to be distinct modes of communication are blurred by the Internet.

This reading goes on to talk about e-mail and the affects it has on interpersonal communications. There were early studies that said that emails broke down the barriers of inhibition that ruled the professional world and caused people to be more aggressive with their co-workers. The authors cite a different study with college students where the majority of people feel that email has improved their relationships with family and friends. Most people who live far from home would tend to agree with this. It is much cheaper to send and receive email then to make long-distance or over-seas calls. I personally believe that email has a tendency to break-down those inhibitions. Being an instructor who receives large amounts of emails from students, some not always very happy with me, I can tell that they feel more comfortable saying something i an email that they would never dare say to my face. This is because, and the readings agree, that no matter how convenient email is, there is still something lost in the fact that you can't read a person's body-language and are therefor more likely to cross a line that you wouldn't normally cross in a face-t0-face conversation.

In Rheingold's The Virtual Community, the author talks about being a member of WELLS. He tells a cute story about his baby having a tick and finding the answer to its removal before his wife could get the pediatrician on the phone. One of the bigger points the author tries to make is the unique feeling of belonging to a community of people who know you, sometimes purely, through your online persona. These sorts of feelings of camaraderie and belonging used to only be available to people through real-live public organizations, but now can be accessed easily from home. The accessibility of other people with like interests has been a positive thing for most people. Bargh and McKenna say that shared interests and values can lead to close, positive friendships born from the Internet, especially of there isn't a "real world" equivalent. This has changes society in a way that many would view as negative. If people don't feel connected to the society in their geographic vicinity, then they tend to spend more time online conversing with people they identify with. Personally, I would hesitate about making value judgements on whether or not more time online, less time with people in your community is a negative thing or not.

For me, I think the affect on politics is one of the major areas that the Internet has affected. In the article, "Smart Mobs," the author talks about President of Estrada losing power because people were able to rally and come together through the use of cell phone technology. The author of CyberDemocracy is correct to say that governments can maintain control over the Internet, snuffing out positive political discourse. However, no one can argue with the power of connectivity the Internet has introduced to politics. Having written a research paper on political engagement and blogs, it became apparent to me that the idea of pulling people that are spread out geographically but are closely aligned in their opinions together into a cohesive movement on the Internet can spell the difference between success and defeat for many candidates. There is also the issue of civic engagement via the Internet. All I can say is that I have sent a multitude of emails to Senators and Congress people but never once mailed a snail-mail letter on the same subjects. The Pew Research project seems to support this assumption. Instead of seeking information that only reinforces their own pre-existing opinions, people are using the Internet to seek new information and will change their minds if presented with adequate information on a subject.

I think that with the few issues some people have with the fuzzing of lines with point-to-point Internet communications, I think that most of the changes brought on by the Internet have been positive. Ever since the Internet became more mainstream, chicken-little's have been crying that the sky is falling. So far none of the doom-and-gloom predictions about the Internet ruining our society have come to fruition. I think that we are still in our infancy when it comes how we use and interact with the Internet. I prefer to take a "post-post-modern" view of the Internet. I lime to think that Internet technology is reactionary to a pre-Internet world. The social issues that we experience because of the Internet existed before the Internet but have been sped up and magnified by the new technologies. Eventually we will learn how to educated young people on socially appropriate uses for the Internet that will allow us to minimize some of the negative affects, while maximizing the positive affects.