English Essays #4. The Great Danger to Our Community: Social Network Services
English Essays 시리즈는 카페지기 커피사유가 영어로 작성한 각종 연습글들과 에세이들을 모아놓은 공간입니다.
우선 서두에 이 글은 2021학년도 2학기, 필자가 수강한 서울대학교 Jeniffer Baillargeon 교수님의 College English 2: Writing 수업의 과제 일환으로 작성된 에세이임을 밝혀둡니다.
Before everything, I’d like to notify you that this short essay was written in a college class, named ‘College English 2: Writing’ in Seoul National University, leaded by Professor Jeniffer Baillargeon, in 2021 Fall Semester.
“Facebook, over and over again, has shown it chooses profit over safety.” The quote said by Ms Haugen, who has warned of the huge crisis of the worldwide encouragement of social divisions conducted by social network services, showed us the high possibility of looking throughout our social feeds would not be proper for maintaining the health of our community. This quote brings an important lesson to the people especially in South Korea, where lots of people are already using SNSs. In June 2021, the usage rate of social media in Korea was 89.3%, which is 1.7 times higher than the world average (Park). Just like Ms Haugen’s perspective, I strongly argue that social network services are definite and even destructive threats toward our society. Those services intensify attitude polarization, promote and leave divisions of the society alone, and also make people feel worse and isolated.
By using social media services, people can manage their relationships online with other people of their will. But this feature of SNS services also promotes a phenomenon called ‘Selective Exposure’, one of the examples of ‘Attitude Polarization’, a phenomenon where one’s attitude is being strengthened by some motivations (Lee 218). The term ‘Selective Exposure’ is used, exactly to express people’s behaviour when they hold and accept information that matches their attitude but not information that does not (Johnson et al. 4622). This point of social media can be harmful when conducting social agreement by helping various people participate in political decisions, therefore, it disimproves people’s understanding of political issues. The 2016 US presidential election has taught us an important lesson related to this point. Messages released by a candidate in SNSs, especially on Twitter, were widely believed and even considered as ‘real facts’ among voters. This led to a huge political polarization in the United States, which is now becoming more hazardous (Johnson et al. 4622). Clearly, social media services intensify attitude polarization. They are disturbing the fulfilment of making social agreements, the key ability for a healthy democratic community.
The point that social media promotes and leaves divisions between social groups alone, is also one that should not be neglected. Secrets around Facebook, the most famous social media in the world, were exposed by one of the Wall Street Journal’s reports, letting people know clearly about this dangerous aspect. According to exposure, there are some exempt Facebook accounts for cross-checks. And it was found that those whitelisted accounts were used to popularize sensational and violent content. For instance, former President Donald J. Trump had called all refugees seeking asylum “animals”, boosting people’s hate against such people. This fact was found in the internal analysis of Facebook, but the company did not make any attempt to solve the problem (Horwitz). Futhermore, Facebook services were used to spread religious hatred in India, which caused deadly riots in Delhi, 2020. Facebook’s internal researchers reported in July 2020, that those riots were caused by inflammatory content and private groups composed of like-minded users. But the company irresponsibly did not take any rapid action to cease such posts or hate speech (Purnell and Horwitz).
Social network services also can make people feel worse and isolated. Thus, they can cause non-negligible threats to people’s mental health. Research has shown that using social network services can cause people to have an SNS addiction, represented by anxiety when not online; a decrease of self-respect, by looking through showy images and stories on the platform; and a sense of isolation, especially when the post or status update does not generate any likes or comments (Hwang and Park; Kim and Kim; Yang et al.; Cha). And there is also another exposure by the Wall Street Journal, showing that Facebook Inc. disregarded in-company reports presenting Instagram could cause harm to teenage girls. For example, in a March 2020 slide presentation posted to Facebook’s internal message board, researchers said that thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse (Wells et al.).
In short, social media services are a great danger to our society, especially because of the irresponsible management that companies have shown and the miserable effects they have caused. Therefore, people should start a discussion to regulate these concerning services to secure a healthy and desirable community. Some might argue that social network services are still beneficial to us because they connect everyone no matter where we are. But if we keep averting our eyes from the problem, because of the potential hazards of the SNS services that researchers alerted us to, the result that we’ll face must be more fatal than we’ve expected. Therefore, it seems like it is clear that the quote said by Ms Haugen should be a starting point for advancing toward a democratic society, not just a passing word.
Works Cited
- Cha, You-bin 차유빈. “Direction and expansion of depression by dysfunctions of SNSs : Focus on Facebook users.” Yonsei Journal of Counseling And Coaching 3 (2015): 287-308. Web. DBPia. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Horwitz, Jeff. “Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt.” The Wall Street Journal. 13 Sep. 2021. Web. www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-files-xcheck-zuckerberg-elite-rules-11631541353. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Hwang, Seong-uk 황성욱, and Jae-jin Park 박재진. “Facebook, What’s the Problem? – Exploratory Factor Analysis of Psychological Problems.” Advertising Research 91 (2011): 68-95. Web. DBPia. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Johnson, Thomas J., et al. “Think the Vote: Information Processing, Selective Exposure to Social Media, and Support for Trump and Clinton.” International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 4621-4645. Web. ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13494/3207. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Kim, Sun-jung 김선정, and Tae-yong Kim 김태영. “How the Emotion of SNS Contents Influence the Users’ Affective States: Focused on Facebook Newsfeed Pages.” Journal of Cybercommunication Academic Society 29.1 (2012): 5-47. Web. DBPia. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Lee, Sang-sin 이상신. “Can Political Communication Intensify Attitude Polarization?: An Analysis of the 18th South Korean Presidential Election.” Korean Party Studies Review 12.1 (2013): 217-242. Web, DBPia, Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Park, So-jeong 박소정. “한국, 세계에서 두 번째로 SNS 많이 한다” [“Korea, Was Found as The 2nd Ranked Country People Uses SNS A Lot In The World.”] ChosunBiz. 16 Jun. 2021. Web. biz.chosun.com/international/international_general/2021/06/16/Z3VO6I2GENFENG577CH7EZWUJE. Accessed 8 Nov. 2021.
- Purnell, Newley, and Jeff Horwitz. “Facebook Services Are Used to Spread Religious Hatred in India, Internal Documents Show.” The Wall Street Journal. 23 Oct. 2021. Web. www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-services-are-used-to-spread-religious-hatred-in-india-internal-documents-show-11635016354. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Wells, Georgia, et al. “Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show.” The Wall Street Journal. 14 Sep. 2021. Web. www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
- Yang, Hye-seung 양혜성. et al. “Does Facebook Enrich Our Social Relations? : Examining the Relationship among Social Psychological Motivation, Facebook Use Behavior, and Perceived Social Support.” Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies 56.5 (2012): 270-297. Web. DBPia. Accessed 10 Nov. 2021.
