Dear Janet Street-porter,
With the internet becoming an essential part of our lifestyle, it is -near- impossible that there are no threats associated with the usage of (enormous) social networking sites like Facebook. However, most of the crimes associated with these websites are due to human error and not social media. Despite the horrific event that resulted in the rape and murder of "a sweet 17 year old girl" whose body was found lingering in a field, Facebook cannot be held responsible for these unpleasant phenomenons.
In the title, you mention that you "believe that Facebook is a toxic addiction". Facebook is a social networking site is that is very popular amongst many teenagers in the world. I agree that it's accessibility as well as ease of use makes a significantly large amount of people addicted. On the other hand, I do not believe that a website can be "Toxic" I do not believe that a website can deliver the same effect as poison or a -life threatening- toxin. Furthermore, I disagree with the fact that the influence of Facebook is "proving to be harmful If not deadly" It is true that Facebook can be "harmful", as it can be a source for (disrespectful and inconsiderate) teens to bully other -vulnerable- kids. This can prove harmful as the teen could, helplessly, hurt themselves. However, it cannot be "deadly", it is the -careless- users that make poor decisions that can put them in deadly situations. These poor decisions of chatting with (random) strangers could lead to escalated situations of rape or murder.
Additionally, I feel that you are very stereotypical while classifying all teenagers as Lonely. You area also very misled into assuming that every 15 year old like "Demi Wright"(who went missing after arranging a meeting with random "self-styled gangster she became friends with chatting online" ) is "lonely, miserable and misunderstood", Or every "17 year old" like Ashleigh hall,who ("didn't get a choice about what to do with her life") is not to be blamed for her death. I could not agree less with you that her death was brutal, and a very displeasing phenomenon, but I do not believe that her parents and she had no fault in this crime. Being a 17 year old girl she is more than capable to have the basic knowledge of not speaking to strangers , and even if she does speak to strangers online, not to meet them alone without really knowing them. You say she "didn't get a choice" but I believe that all the decisions we make are made solely by us. She chose to speak to him, and meet him, she wasn't forced to by anyone. Of Course the killer has all the blame to take on, but her parents could also be questioned as they didn't know a slightest clue about what is going on in the -complicated- girl's life. Or did not care to know where she was going and why she was going there. Facebook cannot be blamed for this, but it is simply due to the clumsiness of the Victim and obviously the unstable viciousness of the killer. Going back to where you exclaim that all 15 year old like Demi Wright is "lonely, miserable and misunderstood" this is a very -dramatically- stereotypical statement, as you suggest that they are all lonely. Many teenagers use this as a way of communication with family and friends, now could you really call those teenagers miserable and lonely because they like to stay in touch with their distant relatives? If so that would be extensively rude and inconsiderate.
Furthermore, it disgusts me that you think that a website that connects families and friends from all over the world - no matter how far, or where they live- is nothing but "a pointless waste of time" Interestingly enough, I do not thing that Facebook's "400 million users" share the same thought with you. Nowadays you can stay close to your loved ones (no matter what the situation or environment) due to these websites like Facebook. A soldier, who spends countless hours in foreign countries , serving for his country does not find that precious time where he gets to talk to his impatient family at home, worried every moment of the day about whether he is safe or not " a pointless waste of time" if anything the complete opposite. For people in his situation, this website is a blessing not a "deadly, toxic... Waste of time" It disgusts me that you believe that connecting courageous soldiers with their family a pointless waste of time!
Frankly,I do not believe that believe that you have the authority to classify Facebook as a narcotic. However, I agree that Facebook can be very time consuming -as there is a lot of mesmerizing entertainment on it- but it is extreme for you to exclaim that it should be "added to theist of addictions like gambling, drinking and drugs" Facebook is nothing but a simple platform that allows the world to be connected, and it is unacceptable that you accuse it for being as deadly as narcotics! "Drinking and drugs" both control your actions to a certain extent and may even negatively influence your acts, how is a website supposed to give off the same effect? Further into your article, you state that "Facebook is unstoppable" you are correct by stating this, but why should it be stopped? It allows the sharing of vital information to be executed , it is a great way to keep good relations with friends and family , it helps connect with child hood friends, it allows you to find schools , colleges, jobs and it serves as a source of entertainment , so why should it be stopped. Facebook itself has given us no valid reason to shut it down but its unstable users (who use it for bad purposes) do, so if anything it's these people that should be blamed and stopped once and for all not a website.
To conclude I would like to say that your article is very biased against Facebook, and is not at all a toxic addiction as stated in your title. If you do blame Facebook for the deaths of innocent citizens, it is at most an accessory to a crime but not the cause! And I think that it should not be disgraced by saying statements like "it's is a pointless waste of time" because it is the main source of connectivity to the world for more than half of the population. I hope you do take these points into consideration and that your point of view on this topic has been inspired to change.
Yours Faithfully,
Riaz Lok
Riaz, are you writing an op-ed piece for a newspaper? I mean, are you supposed to be writing a letter to the editor? A letter to the editor, or any writer of a particular publication should not take more than 5 paragraphs to write. Mostly because of the space that it requires when your letter is publishes, the shorter, but more informative your letter is, the better. That said, your letter can most certainly use a marked amount of revision.
Let's start with the opening statement. Keep in mind that the writer will have written other stories that would have already been published by the time that your letter will have reached and been read by the person. Therefore, it is up to you to remind the writer of the article that you are addressing in the letter. Whenever possible, mention the title of the article, the newspaper or magazine of publication, and the date of the publication. That will not only help to remind the writer of the situation you are addressing, but it will also remind the readers of the article and thus, help create a certain level of consciousness in the reader.
You should definitely do your best to edit letter, Try to shorten it by one or two paragraphs. You can do that by combining certain elements for discussion in a paragraph or just deleting the less important aspects of the discussion. After all, your letter is only effective if it delivers on the salient points of the report that you read. I suggest that you take the most important aspects of the following paragraphs for compression:
Furthermore, it disgusts me that you think that a website that connects families and friends from all over the world - no matter how far, or where they live- is nothing but "a pointless waste of time" ...
along with
Facebook itself has given us no valid reason to shut it down but its unstable users (who use it for bad purposes) do, so if anything it's these people that should be blamed and stopped once and for all not a website.
Saying more with less words is always the aim of an op-ed letter. Try to keep the interest of the reader by doing exactly that. A reporter does not have all day to read what it is you have to say. So just get your message across as soon as you can and present your supporting evidence in the same manner. Hopefully, what you have to say will make it to print because it became more interesting in the short version :-)
