Facebook a "toxic addiction"
Dear Janet Street-porter,
Stereotyping children as the foremost cause of all the problems within social media sites like Facebook is deplorable. Adults are the (first and foremost) reason why children are influenced to commit bad deeds and adults over the age of eighteen commit most cyber crimes. In reality is Facebook really a toxic addiction?
To be fair, a website cannot be compared to something "toxic". I believe that you are stating that a social media website is the same as something poisonous and has the same effects. However, I do coincide that it can definitely become an addiction as over one billion people check there Facebook feed daily. Furthermore, you have stated that Facebook "should be added to the list of addictions, like gambling, drinks and drugs" this is obscure and misleading as any social media website is not as severe and does not have the same impression as gambling and drugs. Gambling and drugs is illegal in most countries but checking your Facebook feed is completely legal; therefore they indeed cannot be portrayed as the same.
Strangely enough, you are blaming Facebook numerous times for a crime, which is not entirely their responsibility. "Peter Chapman was convicted of raping and murdering... initially contacted through Facebook using a falls identity". This is a serious crime but cannot be fully blamed on Facebook, the girl made the wrong decision on conveying to the stranger, which led to future consequences. Ashleigh Hall could have prevented this horrific crime if she decided to block the stranger or set her account on private. "Ashleigh Hall did not get a choice about what to do with her life". Frankly, she had a choice but the immoral one was made, therefore I disagree with the statement that Ashleigh Hall did not have a choice. Everyone has a choice in their life and the choices you make determine the future.
To repeat, you have stated, "Ashleigh Hall did not get a choice about what to do with her life". Ashleigh Hall was a seventeen-year-old girl and at that age we would expect a high level of maturity and understanding compared to the young ages. However, this seventeen-year-old girl made the deceptive decision. I also believe that you are too narrow-minded when you state, "they have little privacy". A Facebook account can be easily changed to a private account (with a single push of a button), thus you cannot blame this site for inadequate privacy. If Ashleigh Hall set her beloved Facebook account on private this disaster could have been prevented. However, I do agree that the privacy is "little", and a lot can be done to improve this feature.
Putting the Ashleigh Hall issue at rest, you have stated that social media websites such as Facebook are "a pointless waste of time". This obscure statement can be very deceiving to many users, and most people may argue that Facebook is a waste of time, as this site has diverse benefits (such as socialization and communication). Momentarily, you state that communicating with a distant relative is a waste of time on Facebook, which is definitely not the case. In addition, it is stated that most 12 to 15 year-olds who use Facebook in their rooms should be classified as "miserable, lonely, misunderstood kids". This statement can be offensive to many users and it is incorrect to assume that these children who use Facebook in their rooms are miserable, lonely and misunderstood people. Statements such as these can be very offensive and stereotypical not only to the child, but their parents and teachers as well.
Nowadays, the majority of children have more than one electronic device and in my opinion I do not think, "Parents can limit time online". It is extremely hard for a parent to keep track of their child -the whole day- and it takes about a minute, to log on to Facebook to reply to a text or upload a picture. With the improvement of technology these days Facebook is easy and fast to access. On the other hand Facebook and most online websites lack a child lock system, which makes it even harder for parents to limit time online. To be honest, Facebook can easily become a dwelling addiction "it is proving to be harmful, if not deadly". I certainly do agree with the fact that over using Facebook can become a detrimental addiction. In addition, distraction and lack of focus are some of the "harmful" side affects. However, I am against the fact that this site can be classified as "deadly" because this website is intangible and cannot commit acts such as crime.
Generally, I agree on the fact that Facebook can easily become an addiction however, I oppose that this website can commit crime. Facebook is just a social media platform (nothing more and nothing less), they have reached above one billion users and this in the near future will gradually increase. In conclusion, this website can develop an "addiction" but certainly not in a "toxic" way.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Thomas
Dear Janet Street-porter,
Stereotyping children as the foremost cause of all the problems within social media sites like Facebook is deplorable. Adults are the (first and foremost) reason why children are influenced to commit bad deeds and adults over the age of eighteen commit most cyber crimes. In reality is Facebook really a toxic addiction?
To be fair, a website cannot be compared to something "toxic". I believe that you are stating that a social media website is the same as something poisonous and has the same effects. However, I do coincide that it can definitely become an addiction as over one billion people check there Facebook feed daily. Furthermore, you have stated that Facebook "should be added to the list of addictions, like gambling, drinks and drugs" this is obscure and misleading as any social media website is not as severe and does not have the same impression as gambling and drugs. Gambling and drugs is illegal in most countries but checking your Facebook feed is completely legal; therefore they indeed cannot be portrayed as the same.
Strangely enough, you are blaming Facebook numerous times for a crime, which is not entirely their responsibility. "Peter Chapman was convicted of raping and murdering... initially contacted through Facebook using a falls identity". This is a serious crime but cannot be fully blamed on Facebook, the girl made the wrong decision on conveying to the stranger, which led to future consequences. Ashleigh Hall could have prevented this horrific crime if she decided to block the stranger or set her account on private. "Ashleigh Hall did not get a choice about what to do with her life". Frankly, she had a choice but the immoral one was made, therefore I disagree with the statement that Ashleigh Hall did not have a choice. Everyone has a choice in their life and the choices you make determine the future.
To repeat, you have stated, "Ashleigh Hall did not get a choice about what to do with her life". Ashleigh Hall was a seventeen-year-old girl and at that age we would expect a high level of maturity and understanding compared to the young ages. However, this seventeen-year-old girl made the deceptive decision. I also believe that you are too narrow-minded when you state, "they have little privacy". A Facebook account can be easily changed to a private account (with a single push of a button), thus you cannot blame this site for inadequate privacy. If Ashleigh Hall set her beloved Facebook account on private this disaster could have been prevented. However, I do agree that the privacy is "little", and a lot can be done to improve this feature.
Putting the Ashleigh Hall issue at rest, you have stated that social media websites such as Facebook are "a pointless waste of time". This obscure statement can be very deceiving to many users, and most people may argue that Facebook is a waste of time, as this site has diverse benefits (such as socialization and communication). Momentarily, you state that communicating with a distant relative is a waste of time on Facebook, which is definitely not the case. In addition, it is stated that most 12 to 15 year-olds who use Facebook in their rooms should be classified as "miserable, lonely, misunderstood kids". This statement can be offensive to many users and it is incorrect to assume that these children who use Facebook in their rooms are miserable, lonely and misunderstood people. Statements such as these can be very offensive and stereotypical not only to the child, but their parents and teachers as well.
Nowadays, the majority of children have more than one electronic device and in my opinion I do not think, "Parents can limit time online". It is extremely hard for a parent to keep track of their child -the whole day- and it takes about a minute, to log on to Facebook to reply to a text or upload a picture. With the improvement of technology these days Facebook is easy and fast to access. On the other hand Facebook and most online websites lack a child lock system, which makes it even harder for parents to limit time online. To be honest, Facebook can easily become a dwelling addiction "it is proving to be harmful, if not deadly". I certainly do agree with the fact that over using Facebook can become a detrimental addiction. In addition, distraction and lack of focus are some of the "harmful" side affects. However, I am against the fact that this site can be classified as "deadly" because this website is intangible and cannot commit acts such as crime.
Generally, I agree on the fact that Facebook can easily become an addiction however, I oppose that this website can commit crime. Facebook is just a social media platform (nothing more and nothing less), they have reached above one billion users and this in the near future will gradually increase. In conclusion, this website can develop an "addiction" but certainly not in a "toxic" way.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Thomas
Do You Need