Facebook's potential benefits and risks require balanced user controls and behavior standards

Rogerian Argument Facebook

Rogerian Argument about Facebook

Social networking sites (SNS) are a rapidly growing segment of social interaction all over the world. (McCafferty 19)They serve as a source of information for individuals and groups as well as a source of relative connectivity between individuals who know one another in the real world and to allow connections between people who share common interests but might not know one another outside a SNS. (Houghton & Joinson 75) The interconnectivity of the sites, in this paper the focus will be on Facebook the most popular of the SNS service, can serve as a foundational support network for information and to build and/or maintain social connections, yet it also has the potential to leave individuals vulnerable to fraudulent and bad behaviors by others as well as a public arena for the exposition of one's own bad behaviors. Some people claim that the potential for connectivity, and especially international connectivity issues associated with a global world view, mandate the support of the broader community for SNS sites and activities. (McCafferty) Conversely others argue that the potential for violations of privacy and inappropriate (or illegal) activities make SNS an insurmountable threat to individuals that should be tightly controlled if not stopped all together. (Kugler) (Haughton & Joinson) (Chaulk & Jones)

The reality is that with the advent of almost any new technology there are both positive and negative possible outcomes, and in the case of social networking sites the potential of each can be exponential. Therefore Facebook should have high levels of easy to use choice on the part of the consumer, as to what he or she is willing to share and with who and should also have a low level of tolerance for illegal and bad behavior on the part of users all while protecting this functional and useful new social tool. (McCafferty) (Kayri1 & Cak-r) (Kodrich & Laituri) (Carroll & Landry)

Argument in Favor of Protection or Even Expansion of Facebook

The converse argument also holds water as it is very clear that the potential for human social gain is as great if not greater than the potential for harm and therefore should be protected, without concern for the potential for harm. Human beings all over the world can connect in real time, as events occur and make a real positive difference to one another. Some examples in the literature include the incomparable activity associated with recent natural disasters, such as was seen in the Haiti earthquake. Individuals and groups had access to rapid information about the disaster, the human toll and the needs of the people and other more fortunate individuals even responded with an unprecedented amount of aid revolving around Facebook and other SNS sites. (Kodrich & Laituri 626)

There is a clear sense that in many instances the opportunity to connect to cultural ideas and ideals different from one's own is also potentially promising in ways in which it has never been before. Prior to the internet and the connectivity of Facebook there has been only a limited opportunity for cultural interaction as travel is usually relegated to the elite, many locations and cultures are hard to reach and language barriers are frustrating, so what was left for most was the ability to view still shots in newspapers and magazines and read or listen to the interpretations of an outsider.

Consider these numbers: Facebook is poised to hit 700 million users and, as seven of 10 Facebook members reside outside the U.S., more than 70 global-language translations. & #8230;In terms of daily usage, Facebook generates the second-most traffic of any site in the world...(McCafferty 19)

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to global social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility for enormous social and cultural sharing. (Ryan & Xenos 1660) (McCafferty) (Kodrich & Laituri) These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and/or any other potential harm from exposure. In this context is also the point where the culture in which we live has become increasingly mobile in the last 100 years and therefore it is much more common for individuals and origin families to be living very far from their place of birth and therefore their origin culture and family.

This may leave some people lonely for the familiar and in serious need for a communication tool that in the very least makes people they have known in other places accessible at any time. There is a clear sense that this type of assurance is enough to calm the loneliness of a new place, and especially for children and teens. (Chaulk & Landry 245) (Kayri & Cak-r) The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered by Facebook and other SNS sites and applications.

Common Ground

The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is actually rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and at least some credence given to the ways in which individuals and Facebook itself can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. The resulting protections would ultimately create an environment that would meet the needs of both views by ultimately protecting the user and creating a situation that would enhance rather than demean human social interaction. Though the latter view would like to see fewer controls and the former view would like to see far more the ultimate and ideal would be a format that allowed sharing in such a way that individual harm was severely mitigated and individual gain was ultimately prosperous.

Such protections could be woven into the usability of Facebook in such a way that users could easily find the information they needed to protect themselves and their children from bad or illegal behavior and from sharing that is inappropriate in one way or the other without relying solely on the consumer to beware the pitfalls of sharing their information. Facebook could monitor the system in such a way that lesser damage is done and also actively pursue violators of cyber illegality. On a more general note many of the controls and laws associated with new internet technologies have yet to be developed as such technologies are so new and the level to which the law and government should or can interfere or control social media is a grey area that will likely become more and more illuminated in the next 10-20 years. The desire of course is to have a completely safe environment for users but freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of association curtail most invasively serious mandated controls. It is for this reason and others that the two seemingly opposing views can and should come together to help create a system that is safer than it has been in the past and protects consumers in unseen ways from the potential for harm.

This is not to say that the whole of the Facebook system should line by line censor what individuals post and that consumer education is not a key aspect of this common ground. In other words individuals need to be counseled that they should not post anything they would not want a criminal or their grandmother to read. Additionally the expansion of positive opportunities for cultural exchange should be supported and even advanced within the confines of fair exchange and positive social networking and even opportunities for education. (Kayri & Cak-r) The whole world is literally at our fingertips and we can choose to control it in such a way that our efforts mitigate harm to others.

The opposing sides can come together on the primary point of each, that human harm should be reduced and human opportunity should be expanded. The potential for human cultural and social interaction is so great with regard to Facebook and other SNS that the common ground should be recognized as a valid position that ultimately demonstrates greater protection while expanding and protecting the possibility for greater human interaction that is present in Facebook.

Conclusion

The potential for harm associated with Facebook often revolves around the idea that conflict is inherently bad, regardless of the fact that such conflict often creates opportunities for learning in an environment that is wholly new and infinitely malleable. This can be true to a large degree for both younger and older users of the Facebook application. All users but especially younger users should be cautioned about the misuse of the tool but the tool itself should also bend people in the direction of safety, allowing controls and user preferences clear access and easily understandable ways to protect themselves and their information. A policy change is definitely in order, regarding the utilization of controls and even possibly tutorials that aide in reassessing privacy controls and allow users to rapidly and easily change settings and affiliations to protect themselves prior to events of possible harm. This should certainly include age controls where certain settings and/or information variables are not even accessible by those in certain age groups and where individuals are made to clearly understand that regardless of how protected they believe they are, just as has always been true everything one posts online should be considered by that individual as public information, therefore if one does not want anyone or even a chosen few to know the information then he or she should simply not post it. Individuals must also be made aware that to some degree their information is timeless, in that information long outdated can still be present in some form online and again take credence to control what they say and post.