In the past, social media did not exist, and people enjoyed privacy with their communication. Due to the lack of network services, people communicated by mail, writing letters to others by hand and receiving letters back. With this type of communication, privacy invasion was not an issue. Today, different reactions and responses are posted and shared on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, meaning that "social invisibility" is no longer available. Social media can be overwhelming to reserved individuals who prefer to live their lives in private.
In "Sharing is a Trap", by Andrew Keen, the author discusses in agony how social media has changed the way people interact. With sites like Facebook, people are habitually leaking information …show more content…
By embracing how social media has provided countless opportunities to improve society, Jarvis argues that his "open life" has inspired many others. As he relates to the time he had prostate cancer, he states that he "inspired men to get tested" and "helped others through surgery" (Jarvis). Thus, others would not have had this guidance without his use of social media.
Although both articles share similar viewpoints, the most important difference between the two arguments is that one appreciates social media more than the other. Jarvis feels that social media and the "digital world" offer opportunities that the public wants to take advantage of, while Keen is dedicated to the idea that social media is destroying communication as it was meant to be and is concerned that the future of social media is only going to get worse. Either way, our private lives are affected, leaving many vulnerable to an unexpected, and sometimes dangerous, open life.
The everyday use of social media, technology, and the "digital world" makes it difficult for some to believe that this form of communication did not exist a few decades ago. Today, technology like handheld devices, nurtures the ability to stay engaged. People can browse for the location of others or even check the news without needing a television. Advertisers also benefit from social media, creating more views to help spread news of their
In "Sharing is a Trap", by Andrew Keen, the author discusses in agony how social media has changed the way people interact. With sites like Facebook, people are habitually leaking information …show more content…
By embracing how social media has provided countless opportunities to improve society, Jarvis argues that his "open life" has inspired many others. As he relates to the time he had prostate cancer, he states that he "inspired men to get tested" and "helped others through surgery" (Jarvis). Thus, others would not have had this guidance without his use of social media.
Although both articles share similar viewpoints, the most important difference between the two arguments is that one appreciates social media more than the other. Jarvis feels that social media and the "digital world" offer opportunities that the public wants to take advantage of, while Keen is dedicated to the idea that social media is destroying communication as it was meant to be and is concerned that the future of social media is only going to get worse. Either way, our private lives are affected, leaving many vulnerable to an unexpected, and sometimes dangerous, open life.
The everyday use of social media, technology, and the "digital world" makes it difficult for some to believe that this form of communication did not exist a few decades ago. Today, technology like handheld devices, nurtures the ability to stay engaged. People can browse for the location of others or even check the news without needing a television. Advertisers also benefit from social media, creating more views to help spread news of their