Teenagers and social networking- it might actually be good for them is an argumentative story written by Clive Thompson and published in 2013, in the Guardian. The author argues that based on some studies and findings, teenage use of social media is not as dangerous as it is posed and therefore he finds it good but moderation is required. In today’s world, technology has been advanced necessitating social networking; it, therefore, has impacted the youth’s lives in one way or another. Therefore, the passage by Clive Thompson came at a time when the review of the impact the social networking brings to the youths.
The author, Clive Thompson was very clear in his passage, aiming to argue for the social networking. He structured his article in a clever way starting with the opposing views and thereafter supporting views. His opposing views include: creating a shallow and trivial culture where kids are unable to socialize face to face, online socializing could be leading to a hedonistic generation who live only in the thrill of the computer-generated moment. The article further argues that Newspapers too are constantly filled with harming articles such as pornography addiction and aggression supposedly caused by violent video games and finally cites the technology as being able to turn kids into being emoticons. Clive Thompson goes ahead to put across his supporting points. He claims the teenage social networking could actually be good by trying to refute how the society views things. For example, he says: a good number of the kids are actually not extreme online addicts and that a good number still create time for face to face meetings, sexting is not high as thought. He claims new technology always provokes generational panic while the study shows their digital use can be very beneficial. He further argues that kids do care about their privacy and as s result, some go for Social Medias like Snapchat that their traces are deleted. Lastly, he says, kids’ wrings have blossomed in size and complexity and that short forms claims are not true.
I must say the author has written a well-researched article citing relevant works of other studies; this aims to establish his points on this very important discussion. I, therefore, view his arguments as wide and very significant but shallowly interpreted. However citing relevant studies, he drives the article towards his opinions rather than the realities.
I agree with Clive Thompson when he states from the essay of the novelist Jonathan Franzen that online socializing is creating shallow and trivial culture. Technology proves to be very addictive and therefore once addicted, at least little time will have to substitute meeting with others for face to face talks’ this, therefore, leads to people who are never used to face to face socialization. This further can support the argument of Susan Greenfield that upcoming generations could be hedonistic who live only in the thrill of moments generated by the computer
I support Clive Thompson that the kids should be allowed to have the technology but I would say with extreme moderation; it’s normal the generations have always had panics with new generations but actually the kids prove to very inventive with the technology.
I don’t agree with the Clive Thompson when he argues that kids care about their privacy in online socialization. Yes, some percentage of youths care about the information they share but in general conclusion according to Ramasubbu (2013), teenagers care less about data privacy and more about socially oriented forms of privacy, those designated to protect the integrity of a community. The research shows only 56% are finding it easy to set privacy controls, therefore, the question becomes, what about the privacy of the 44%?
Clive Thompson interprets the data by Pew in a way that gives it less weight. A 4% and 15% of teens worldwide being able to be involved in sexting is a massive damage the technology is causing and Thompson ignores this. A total of 19% of youths are either receiving or sending sexts and this a colossal damage to the teens’ morals.
This passage is based on the combination of my view as the author and those of the works of others that I’ve cited. It hence qualifies for a better engagement of what Clive Thompson could have been aiming with his article. However, some of the works cited may have become less accurate; for example, the Pew research relied on was published in May 2017 and the data could have had a difference by now.
Ramasubbu, S (2017). Privacy and teens in social media: Pew Research Centre: retrieved on March 27, 2018, at https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us-58b92d56e4b0fa5b844b1de