PHI 103

Does Social Media enhance interpersonal relationships

Explain the topic you are addressing and your position on it. Provide a preview of your paper and a statement of your thesis in your opening paragraph. [Approximately 100 words] Present your main argument for your thesis in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line. Clearly indicate whether your argument is intended to be inductive or deductive. Follow up the presentation of your argument by clarifying the meaning of any premises that could use some explanation. [About 150 words]

·         If your argument is deductive, then it should be valid (in the strict logical sense of the word); if it is inductive, then it should be strong. Make sure to avoid committing logical fallacies within your argument (e.g., begging the question). Additionally, the premises should be true, to the best of your knowledge. If one of your premises has a pretty obvious counter-example, then you should either fix the argument so that it does not have this flaw, or later, in your paper (steps three through five) you should address the apparent counter-example (showing that it does not really refute the truth of your premise). Arguments that are not valid, not very strong, commit fallacies, or that have counter-examples that are not adequately addressed will not receive full credit.

Provide supporting evidence for the premises of your argument. [Approximately 350 words]

·         Pay special attention to those premises that could be seen as controversial. Evidence may include academic research sources, supporting arguments (arguments whose conclusions are premises of the main argument), or other ways of demonstrating the truth of those premises. This section should include at least one scholarly research source.

Explain a strong objection to your argument. [Approximately 250 words]

·         Study what people on the other side of this question think about your reasoning and present the best possible objection that someone could have to your argument. Do not commit the straw man fallacy here. Reference at least one scholarlyresearch source. See the “Practicing Effective Criticism” section of Chapter 9 of the course text for more information.

Defend your argument against the objection. [Approximately 200 words]

·         Once you have presented the objection, indicate clearly how you might respond to it. It is acceptable to admit that reasonable people might disagree with you or that there might be an area in which your argument could be further strengthened, but you should do your best to explain why your argument is sound or cogent despite the objections.

Provide an appropriate conclusion. [Approximately 75 words]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rogerian Argument about Facebook

Introduction

            Social networking sites (SNS) are a rapidly growing segment of social interaction all over the world. (McCafferty19)They serve as a source of information for individuals and groups as well as a source of relative connectivity between individuals who know one another in the real world and to allow connections between people who share common interests but might not know one another outside a SNS. (Houghton &Joinson 75) The interconnectivity of the sites, in this paper the focus will be on Facebook the most popular of the SNS service, can serve as a foundational support network for information and to build and or maintain social connections, yet it also has the potential to leave individuals vulnerable to fraudulent and bad behaviors by others as well as a public arena for the exposition of one’s own bad behaviors. Some people claim that the potential for connectivity, and especially international connectivity issues associated with a global world view, mandate the support of the broader community for SNS sites and activities. (McCafferty) Conversely others argue that the potential for violations of privacy and inappropriate (or illegal) activities make SNS an insurmountable threat to individuals that should be tightly controlled if not stopped all together.  (Kugler) (Haughton &Joinson) (Chaulk& Jones)

            The reality is that with the advent of almost any new technology there are both positive and negative possible outcomes, and in the case of social networking sites the potential of each can be exponential. Therefore Facebook should have high levels of easy to use choice on the part of the consumer, as to what he or she is willing to share and with who and should also have a low level of tolerance for illegal and bad behavior on the part of users all while protecting this functional and useful new social tool. (McCafferty) (Kayri1 &Çakır) (Kodrich&Laituri) (Carroll & Landry)

           

Argument in Favor of Greater Controls or Elimination of Facebook

            Facebook can and often does create conflict in interpersonal relationships through inappropriate behaviors of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and therefore offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem benign to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. (Chaulk& Jones 246) The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. (Houghton &Joinson 82)  In some recent examples the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly sever reactions in those involved, while others were sanctioned with job loss as a result of online posts on his or her SNS page. (Houghton &Joinson 77)

            These situations and others bring to mind a need to carefully control the venue of the SNS, so that individuals are in the least aware of the possibility of connectivity associated with posting and or the posting activities of others. This is also to say nothing of the two other important issues that can be seen in SNS activity, cyber-bullying or stalking and fraudulent economic scams. (Chaulk& Jones) (Kugler) Lastly there is also a valid argument that has been present prior to Facebook where psychologists and others fear harm to introverted individuals because the venue allows them to avoid real life social contact. (Ryan&Xenos) The kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook and other SNS sites, which create at least the illusion of anonymity and protection by distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrate fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and occur often, some with relatively minor results and others with rare but disastrous results.

            Privacy violations, though they are subjective likely occur every second though the majority is relatively minor, no more common than in real life social interactions but multiplied by thousands and millions based on the connectivity of so many people many of whom have access to Facebook 24-7. In other words because individuals cannot interact with 130 (the average number of Facebook user friends) known people in the physical world in any given day the odds of offense or even real or perceived harm increase exponentially in both directions. (Houghton &Joinson75) In this context the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more unsecure features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. (Strand 11) (Ryan&Xenos)Additionally, the standard idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

Argument in Favor of Protection or Even Expansion of Facebook

            The converse argument also holds water as it is very clear that the potential for human social gain is as great if not greater than the potential for harm and therefore should be protected, without concern for the potential for harm. Human beings all over the world can connect in real time, as events occur and make a real positive difference to one another. Some examples in the literature include the incomparable activity associated with recent natural disasters, such as was seen in the Haiti earthquake. Individuals and groups had access to rapid information about the disaster, the human toll and the needs of the people and other more fortunate individuals even responded with an unprecedented amount of aid revolving around Facebook and other SNS sites. (Kodrich&Laituri 626)

            There is a clear sense that in many instances the opportunity to connect to cultural ideas and ideals different from one’s own is also potentially promising in ways in which it has never been before. Prior to the internet and the connectivity of Facebook there has been only a limited opportunity for cultural interaction as travel is usually relegated to the elite, many locations and cultures are hard to reach and language barriers are frustrating, so what was left for most was the ability to view still shots in newspapers and magazines and read or listen to the interpretations of an outsider.

Consider these numbers: Facebookis poised to hit 700 million users and,as seven of 10 Facebook members resideoutside the U.S., more than 70global-language translations. …In termsof daily usage, Facebook generates thesecond-most traffic of any site in theworld…(McCafferty 19)

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to global social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility for enormous social and cultural sharing.  (Ryan &Xenos 1660) (McCafferty) (Kodrich&Laituri) These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other potential harm from exposure.  In this context is also the point where the culture in which we live has become increasingly mobile in the last 100 years and therefore it is much more common for individuals and origin families to be living very far from their place of birth and therefore their origin culture and family.

            This may leave some people lonely for the familiar and in serious need for a communication tool that in the very least makes people they have known in other places accessible at any time. There is a clear sense that this type of assurance is enough to calm the loneliness of a new place, and especially for children and teens. (Chaulk& Landry 245) (Kayri&Çakır) The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered by Facebook and other SNS sites and applications.

Common Ground

            The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is actually rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and at least some credence given to the ways in which individuals and Facebook itself can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. The resulting protections would ultimately create an environment that would meet the needs of both views by ultimately protecting the user and creating a situation that would enhance rather than demean human social interaction. Though the latter view would like to see fewer controls and the former view would like to see far more the ultimate and ideal would be a format that allowed sharing in such a way that individual harm was severely mitigated and individual gain was ultimately prosperous.

            Such protections could be woven into the usability of Facebook in such a way that users could easily find the information they needed to protect themselves and their children from bad or illegal behavior and from sharing that is inappropriate in one way or the other without relying solely on the consumer to beware the pitfalls of sharing their information.  Facebook could monitor the system in such a way that lesser damage is done and also actively pursue violators of cyber illegality. On a more general note many of the controls and laws associated with new internet technologies have yet to be developed as such technologies are so new and the level to which the law and government should or can interfere or control social media is a grey area that will likely become more and more illuminated in the next 10-20 years. The desire of course is to have a completely safe environment for users but freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of association curtail most invasively serious mandated controls. It is for this reason and others that the two seemingly opposing views can and should come together to help create a system that is safer than it has been in the past and protects consumers in unseen ways from the potential for harm.

            This is not to say that the whole of the Facebook system should line by line censor what individuals post and that consumer education is not a key aspect of this common ground. In other words individuals need to be counseled that they should not post anything they would not want a criminal or their grandmother to read. Additionally the expansion of positive opportunities for cultural exchange should be supported and even advanced within the confines of fair exchange and positive social networking and even opportunities for education. (Kayri&Çakır) The whole world is literally at our fingertips and we can choose to control it in such a way that our efforts mitigate harm to others. 

            The opposing sides can come together on the primary point of each, that human harm should be reduced and human opportunity should be expanded. The potential for human cultural and social interaction is so great with regard to Facebook and other SNS that the common ground should be recognized as a valid position that ultimately demonstrates greater protection while expanding and protecting the possibility for greater human interaction that is present in Facebook.

Conclusion

            The potential for harm associated with Facebook often revolves around the idea that conflict is inherently bad, regardless of the fact that such conflict often creates opportunities for learning in an environment that is wholly new and infinitely malleable. This can be true to a large degree for both younger and older users of the Facebook application. All users but especially younger users should be cautioned about the misuse of the tool but the tool itself should also bend people in the direction of safety, allowing controls and user preferences clear access and easily understandable ways to protect themselves and their information. A policy change is definitely in order, regarding the utilization of controls and even possibly tutorials that aide in reassessing privacy controls and allow users to rapidly and easily change settings and affiliations to protect themselves prior to events of possible harm. This should certainly include age controls where certain settings and or information variables are not even accessible by those in certain age groups and where individuals are made to clearly understand that regardless of how protected they believe they are, just as has always been true everything one posts online should be considered by that individual as public information, therefore if one does not want anyone or even a chosen few to know the information then he or she should simply not post it. Individuals must also be made aware that to some degree their information is timeless, in that information long outdated can still be present in some form online and again take credence to control what they say and post.


 

Works Cited

Carroll, Brian, and Katie Landry. “Logging On And Letting Out: Using Online Social Networks To Grieve And To Mourn.” Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society 30.5 (2010): 341-349. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=53744338& site=ehost-live

Chaulk, Kasey, and Tim Jones. “Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further Concerns About Facebook.” Journal Of Family Violence 26.4 (2011): 245-254. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=60104316& site=ehost-live

Houghton, David J. and Adam N. Joinson. “Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations”

            Journal of Technology in Human Services 28. 1-2 (2010) 74-94. doi:

            10.1080/15228831003770775  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228831003770775

Kayri, Murat andÖzlemÇakır “An Applied Study om Educational Use of Facebook as a Web 2.0 Tool: the Sample Lesson of Computer Networks and Communication.”  International Journal of Computer Science &Information  Technology 2.4 (August 2010): 48-58 doi : 10.5121/ijcsit.2010.2405 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.0402.pdf

Khodrich, Kris and Melinda Laituri “Making a Connection: Social Media’s Key Role in the Coverage of the Haiti Earthquake and in the Relief Efforts”Journal of Communication and Computer 8 (2011) 624-627

Kugler, Logan. “Spot And Avoid Facebook Scams.” PC World 29.8 (2011): 35-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=62865686&site=ehost-live

McCafferty, Dennis. “Brave, New Social World.” Communications Of The ACM 54.7 (2011): 19-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.doi :10.1145/1965724.1965732

Tracii Ryan and Sophia Xenos. “Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage”


To insert individual citation into a bibliography in a word-processor, select your preferred citation style below and drag-and-drop it into the document.

Computers in Human Behavior (08 March 2011) doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211000379

Strand, John L. “Facebook: Trademarks, Fan Pages, And Community Pages.” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal 23.1 (2011): 10-13. Business Source Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=56552425&site=ehost-live

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Facebook one can and often does create conflict through actions of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and, therefore, offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly aggressive, invasive or be incriminating to others.

P1: Facebook often creates conflict from it users through inappropriate behaviors

P2: Facebook is in need of greater controls or elimination

C: Therefore,Facebook should have stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself. 

Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. In some recent examples, the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly severe reactions in those involved, while others were fired from their job as a result of online posts on his or her Facebook page. (Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N., 2010)

This kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook, which creates, at least, the illusion of anonymity and protection of distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrates fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and often occur, some with relatively low results and others with extraordinary but disastrous results.

In this context, the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. Additionally, the basic idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self-protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

The design of Facebook is geared toward encouraging “social interaction in a virtual environment. In general, communication is facilitated by information posted in the profile (i.e., the user’s personal page), which often includes a photograph of the member and personal information describing his or her interests, both of which provide information about one’s identity.

P1: Facebook can and has allowed Individuals and groups to access rapid information, such as national disaster.

P2: Facebook user can connect in real-time as events occur and post info on Disaster Message Board.

C: Therefore, Facebook links in real-time, as events occur allowing people to streamline post-disaster communications even further.

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility of enormous social and cultural sharing.

Now, with a feature launched by Facebook, users can update people about their safety during disasters. With “Safety Check,” users can let friends and family know whether they’re safe when an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster hits. Employing the city listed in user profiles, the latest check-in spot or the location from which users are accessing the Internet, Facebook will activate the tool and determine who is in the affected area, sending a notification regarding someone’s safety. (Disaster Response on Facebook, 2009)

Users have the option to tap “I’m safe” or “I’m not in the area,” and to mark friends as safe as well. The choice will generate a newsfeed story. If users have friends in an affected area who are marked as safe, they’ll receive a notification that will take them to a Security Check bookmark with a list of updates. As millions prepare for a potential disaster, Facebook has added one more tool to the arsenal of preparedness one that concerned mothers will surely appreciate.

The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and, at least, some authority is given to the ways in which individuals can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other possible harm from exposure. The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered Facebook and its application.

 I can tell you first hand that disaster message board will help not only one family but many others as well. With of fear and stress that was being felt during a disaster such the attacks on the World Trade Centerare tremendous. At the time of the attacks, my wife worked two blocks away from this catastrophic event. As she was explaining to me, her experiences from of that day, she mentioned that all landline were down, and cellphone were very expensive to own and even worse the reception on mobile phones was spotty at best. So it took her five days to get in contact with her parents that livedon the west coast to ensure themthat she and her sister were OK.  She tried to put into words about how she felt after finally connected her mother and how they both rejoiced with every word; there was a quiver of her lip as she’s holding back her tears.If this type of technology existed,it could have eased the pain and suffering of a least one parent fearing that she lost her two daughters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Disaster Response on Facebook. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/: https://www.facebook.com/disaster

Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N. (2010). Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services 28, 77.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case you need an assignment done, hire us. Using our writing services will make your life easier because we deliver exceptional results. Use us to get an A!

We are the Best!

course-preview

275 words per page

You essay will be 275 words per page. Tell your writer how many words you need, or the pages.


12 pt Times New Roman

Unless otherwise stated, we use 12pt Arial/Times New Roman as the font for your paper.


Double line spacing

Your essay will have double spaced text. View our sample essays.


Any citation style

APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, our writers are experts at formatting.


We Accept

Secure Payment
Image 3

PHI 103

Does Social Media enhance interpersonal relationships

Explain the topic you are addressing and your position on it. Provide a preview of your paper and a statement of your thesis in your opening paragraph. [Approximately 100 words] Present your main argument for your thesis in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line. Clearly indicate whether your argument is intended to be inductive or deductive. Follow up the presentation of your argument by clarifying the meaning of any premises that could use some explanation. [About 150 words]

·         If your argument is deductive, then it should be valid (in the strict logical sense of the word); if it is inductive, then it should be strong. Make sure to avoid committing logical fallacies within your argument (e.g., begging the question). Additionally, the premises should be true, to the best of your knowledge. If one of your premises has a pretty obvious counter-example, then you should either fix the argument so that it does not have this flaw, or later, in your paper (steps three through five) you should address the apparent counter-example (showing that it does not really refute the truth of your premise). Arguments that are not valid, not very strong, commit fallacies, or that have counter-examples that are not adequately addressed will not receive full credit.

Provide supporting evidence for the premises of your argument. [Approximately 350 words]

·         Pay special attention to those premises that could be seen as controversial. Evidence may include academic research sources, supporting arguments (arguments whose conclusions are premises of the main argument), or other ways of demonstrating the truth of those premises. This section should include at least one scholarly research source.

Explain a strong objection to your argument. [Approximately 250 words]

·         Study what people on the other side of this question think about your reasoning and present the best possible objection that someone could have to your argument. Do not commit the straw man fallacy here. Reference at least one scholarlyresearch source. See the “Practicing Effective Criticism” section of Chapter 9 of the course text for more information.

Defend your argument against the objection. [Approximately 200 words]

·         Once you have presented the objection, indicate clearly how you might respond to it. It is acceptable to admit that reasonable people might disagree with you or that there might be an area in which your argument could be further strengthened, but you should do your best to explain why your argument is sound or cogent despite the objections.

Provide an appropriate conclusion. [Approximately 75 words]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rogerian Argument about Facebook

Introduction

            Social networking sites (SNS) are a rapidly growing segment of social interaction all over the world. (McCafferty19)They serve as a source of information for individuals and groups as well as a source of relative connectivity between individuals who know one another in the real world and to allow connections between people who share common interests but might not know one another outside a SNS. (Houghton &Joinson 75) The interconnectivity of the sites, in this paper the focus will be on Facebook the most popular of the SNS service, can serve as a foundational support network for information and to build and or maintain social connections, yet it also has the potential to leave individuals vulnerable to fraudulent and bad behaviors by others as well as a public arena for the exposition of one’s own bad behaviors. Some people claim that the potential for connectivity, and especially international connectivity issues associated with a global world view, mandate the support of the broader community for SNS sites and activities. (McCafferty) Conversely others argue that the potential for violations of privacy and inappropriate (or illegal) activities make SNS an insurmountable threat to individuals that should be tightly controlled if not stopped all together.  (Kugler) (Haughton &Joinson) (Chaulk& Jones)

            The reality is that with the advent of almost any new technology there are both positive and negative possible outcomes, and in the case of social networking sites the potential of each can be exponential. Therefore Facebook should have high levels of easy to use choice on the part of the consumer, as to what he or she is willing to share and with who and should also have a low level of tolerance for illegal and bad behavior on the part of users all while protecting this functional and useful new social tool. (McCafferty) (Kayri1 &Çakır) (Kodrich&Laituri) (Carroll & Landry)

           

Argument in Favor of Greater Controls or Elimination of Facebook

            Facebook can and often does create conflict in interpersonal relationships through inappropriate behaviors of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and therefore offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem benign to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. (Chaulk& Jones 246) The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. (Houghton &Joinson 82)  In some recent examples the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly sever reactions in those involved, while others were sanctioned with job loss as a result of online posts on his or her SNS page. (Houghton &Joinson 77)

            These situations and others bring to mind a need to carefully control the venue of the SNS, so that individuals are in the least aware of the possibility of connectivity associated with posting and or the posting activities of others. This is also to say nothing of the two other important issues that can be seen in SNS activity, cyber-bullying or stalking and fraudulent economic scams. (Chaulk& Jones) (Kugler) Lastly there is also a valid argument that has been present prior to Facebook where psychologists and others fear harm to introverted individuals because the venue allows them to avoid real life social contact. (Ryan&Xenos) The kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook and other SNS sites, which create at least the illusion of anonymity and protection by distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrate fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and occur often, some with relatively minor results and others with rare but disastrous results.

            Privacy violations, though they are subjective likely occur every second though the majority is relatively minor, no more common than in real life social interactions but multiplied by thousands and millions based on the connectivity of so many people many of whom have access to Facebook 24-7. In other words because individuals cannot interact with 130 (the average number of Facebook user friends) known people in the physical world in any given day the odds of offense or even real or perceived harm increase exponentially in both directions. (Houghton &Joinson75) In this context the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more unsecure features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. (Strand 11) (Ryan&Xenos)Additionally, the standard idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

Argument in Favor of Protection or Even Expansion of Facebook

            The converse argument also holds water as it is very clear that the potential for human social gain is as great if not greater than the potential for harm and therefore should be protected, without concern for the potential for harm. Human beings all over the world can connect in real time, as events occur and make a real positive difference to one another. Some examples in the literature include the incomparable activity associated with recent natural disasters, such as was seen in the Haiti earthquake. Individuals and groups had access to rapid information about the disaster, the human toll and the needs of the people and other more fortunate individuals even responded with an unprecedented amount of aid revolving around Facebook and other SNS sites. (Kodrich&Laituri 626)

            There is a clear sense that in many instances the opportunity to connect to cultural ideas and ideals different from one’s own is also potentially promising in ways in which it has never been before. Prior to the internet and the connectivity of Facebook there has been only a limited opportunity for cultural interaction as travel is usually relegated to the elite, many locations and cultures are hard to reach and language barriers are frustrating, so what was left for most was the ability to view still shots in newspapers and magazines and read or listen to the interpretations of an outsider.

Consider these numbers: Facebookis poised to hit 700 million users and,as seven of 10 Facebook members resideoutside the U.S., more than 70global-language translations. …In termsof daily usage, Facebook generates thesecond-most traffic of any site in theworld…(McCafferty 19)

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to global social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility for enormous social and cultural sharing.  (Ryan &Xenos 1660) (McCafferty) (Kodrich&Laituri) These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other potential harm from exposure.  In this context is also the point where the culture in which we live has become increasingly mobile in the last 100 years and therefore it is much more common for individuals and origin families to be living very far from their place of birth and therefore their origin culture and family.

            This may leave some people lonely for the familiar and in serious need for a communication tool that in the very least makes people they have known in other places accessible at any time. There is a clear sense that this type of assurance is enough to calm the loneliness of a new place, and especially for children and teens. (Chaulk& Landry 245) (Kayri&Çakır) The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered by Facebook and other SNS sites and applications.

Common Ground

            The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is actually rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and at least some credence given to the ways in which individuals and Facebook itself can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. The resulting protections would ultimately create an environment that would meet the needs of both views by ultimately protecting the user and creating a situation that would enhance rather than demean human social interaction. Though the latter view would like to see fewer controls and the former view would like to see far more the ultimate and ideal would be a format that allowed sharing in such a way that individual harm was severely mitigated and individual gain was ultimately prosperous.

            Such protections could be woven into the usability of Facebook in such a way that users could easily find the information they needed to protect themselves and their children from bad or illegal behavior and from sharing that is inappropriate in one way or the other without relying solely on the consumer to beware the pitfalls of sharing their information.  Facebook could monitor the system in such a way that lesser damage is done and also actively pursue violators of cyber illegality. On a more general note many of the controls and laws associated with new internet technologies have yet to be developed as such technologies are so new and the level to which the law and government should or can interfere or control social media is a grey area that will likely become more and more illuminated in the next 10-20 years. The desire of course is to have a completely safe environment for users but freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of association curtail most invasively serious mandated controls. It is for this reason and others that the two seemingly opposing views can and should come together to help create a system that is safer than it has been in the past and protects consumers in unseen ways from the potential for harm.

            This is not to say that the whole of the Facebook system should line by line censor what individuals post and that consumer education is not a key aspect of this common ground. In other words individuals need to be counseled that they should not post anything they would not want a criminal or their grandmother to read. Additionally the expansion of positive opportunities for cultural exchange should be supported and even advanced within the confines of fair exchange and positive social networking and even opportunities for education. (Kayri&Çakır) The whole world is literally at our fingertips and we can choose to control it in such a way that our efforts mitigate harm to others. 

            The opposing sides can come together on the primary point of each, that human harm should be reduced and human opportunity should be expanded. The potential for human cultural and social interaction is so great with regard to Facebook and other SNS that the common ground should be recognized as a valid position that ultimately demonstrates greater protection while expanding and protecting the possibility for greater human interaction that is present in Facebook.

Conclusion

            The potential for harm associated with Facebook often revolves around the idea that conflict is inherently bad, regardless of the fact that such conflict often creates opportunities for learning in an environment that is wholly new and infinitely malleable. This can be true to a large degree for both younger and older users of the Facebook application. All users but especially younger users should be cautioned about the misuse of the tool but the tool itself should also bend people in the direction of safety, allowing controls and user preferences clear access and easily understandable ways to protect themselves and their information. A policy change is definitely in order, regarding the utilization of controls and even possibly tutorials that aide in reassessing privacy controls and allow users to rapidly and easily change settings and affiliations to protect themselves prior to events of possible harm. This should certainly include age controls where certain settings and or information variables are not even accessible by those in certain age groups and where individuals are made to clearly understand that regardless of how protected they believe they are, just as has always been true everything one posts online should be considered by that individual as public information, therefore if one does not want anyone or even a chosen few to know the information then he or she should simply not post it. Individuals must also be made aware that to some degree their information is timeless, in that information long outdated can still be present in some form online and again take credence to control what they say and post.


 

Works Cited

Carroll, Brian, and Katie Landry. “Logging On And Letting Out: Using Online Social Networks To Grieve And To Mourn.” Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society 30.5 (2010): 341-349. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=53744338& site=ehost-live

Chaulk, Kasey, and Tim Jones. “Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further Concerns About Facebook.” Journal Of Family Violence 26.4 (2011): 245-254. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=60104316& site=ehost-live

Houghton, David J. and Adam N. Joinson. “Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations”

            Journal of Technology in Human Services 28. 1-2 (2010) 74-94. doi:

            10.1080/15228831003770775  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228831003770775

Kayri, Murat andÖzlemÇakır “An Applied Study om Educational Use of Facebook as a Web 2.0 Tool: the Sample Lesson of Computer Networks and Communication.”  International Journal of Computer Science &Information  Technology 2.4 (August 2010): 48-58 doi : 10.5121/ijcsit.2010.2405 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.0402.pdf

Khodrich, Kris and Melinda Laituri “Making a Connection: Social Media’s Key Role in the Coverage of the Haiti Earthquake and in the Relief Efforts”Journal of Communication and Computer 8 (2011) 624-627

Kugler, Logan. “Spot And Avoid Facebook Scams.” PC World 29.8 (2011): 35-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=62865686&site=ehost-live

McCafferty, Dennis. “Brave, New Social World.” Communications Of The ACM 54.7 (2011): 19-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.doi :10.1145/1965724.1965732

Tracii Ryan and Sophia Xenos. “Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage”


To insert individual citation into a bibliography in a word-processor, select your preferred citation style below and drag-and-drop it into the document.

Computers in Human Behavior (08 March 2011) doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211000379

Strand, John L. “Facebook: Trademarks, Fan Pages, And Community Pages.” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal 23.1 (2011): 10-13. Business Source Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=56552425&site=ehost-live

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Facebook one can and often does create conflict through actions of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and, therefore, offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly aggressive, invasive or be incriminating to others.

P1: Facebook often creates conflict from it users through inappropriate behaviors

P2: Facebook is in need of greater controls or elimination

C: Therefore,Facebook should have stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself. 

Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. In some recent examples, the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly severe reactions in those involved, while others were fired from their job as a result of online posts on his or her Facebook page. (Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N., 2010)

This kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook, which creates, at least, the illusion of anonymity and protection of distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrates fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and often occur, some with relatively low results and others with extraordinary but disastrous results.

In this context, the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. Additionally, the basic idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self-protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

The design of Facebook is geared toward encouraging “social interaction in a virtual environment. In general, communication is facilitated by information posted in the profile (i.e., the user’s personal page), which often includes a photograph of the member and personal information describing his or her interests, both of which provide information about one’s identity.

P1: Facebook can and has allowed Individuals and groups to access rapid information, such as national disaster.

P2: Facebook user can connect in real-time as events occur and post info on Disaster Message Board.

C: Therefore, Facebook links in real-time, as events occur allowing people to streamline post-disaster communications even further.

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility of enormous social and cultural sharing.

Now, with a feature launched by Facebook, users can update people about their safety during disasters. With “Safety Check,” users can let friends and family know whether they’re safe when an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster hits. Employing the city listed in user profiles, the latest check-in spot or the location from which users are accessing the Internet, Facebook will activate the tool and determine who is in the affected area, sending a notification regarding someone’s safety. (Disaster Response on Facebook, 2009)

Users have the option to tap “I’m safe” or “I’m not in the area,” and to mark friends as safe as well. The choice will generate a newsfeed story. If users have friends in an affected area who are marked as safe, they’ll receive a notification that will take them to a Security Check bookmark with a list of updates. As millions prepare for a potential disaster, Facebook has added one more tool to the arsenal of preparedness one that concerned mothers will surely appreciate.

The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and, at least, some authority is given to the ways in which individuals can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other possible harm from exposure. The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered Facebook and its application.

 I can tell you first hand that disaster message board will help not only one family but many others as well. With of fear and stress that was being felt during a disaster such the attacks on the World Trade Centerare tremendous. At the time of the attacks, my wife worked two blocks away from this catastrophic event. As she was explaining to me, her experiences from of that day, she mentioned that all landline were down, and cellphone were very expensive to own and even worse the reception on mobile phones was spotty at best. So it took her five days to get in contact with her parents that livedon the west coast to ensure themthat she and her sister were OK.  She tried to put into words about how she felt after finally connected her mother and how they both rejoiced with every word; there was a quiver of her lip as she’s holding back her tears.If this type of technology existed,it could have eased the pain and suffering of a least one parent fearing that she lost her two daughters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Disaster Response on Facebook. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/: https://www.facebook.com/disaster

Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N. (2010). Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services 28, 77.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case you need an assignment done, hire us. Using our writing services will make your life easier because we deliver exceptional results. Use us to get an A!

We are the Best!

course-preview

275 words per page

You essay will be 275 words per page. Tell your writer how many words you need, or the pages.


12 pt Times New Roman

Unless otherwise stated, we use 12pt Arial/Times New Roman as the font for your paper.


Double line spacing

Your essay will have double spaced text. View our sample essays.


Any citation style

APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, our writers are experts at formatting.


We Accept

Secure Payment
Image 3

PHI 103

Does Social Media enhance interpersonal relationships

Explain the topic you are addressing and your position on it. Provide a preview of your paper and a statement of your thesis in your opening paragraph. [Approximately 100 words] Present your main argument for your thesis in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line. Clearly indicate whether your argument is intended to be inductive or deductive. Follow up the presentation of your argument by clarifying the meaning of any premises that could use some explanation. [About 150 words]

·         If your argument is deductive, then it should be valid (in the strict logical sense of the word); if it is inductive, then it should be strong. Make sure to avoid committing logical fallacies within your argument (e.g., begging the question). Additionally, the premises should be true, to the best of your knowledge. If one of your premises has a pretty obvious counter-example, then you should either fix the argument so that it does not have this flaw, or later, in your paper (steps three through five) you should address the apparent counter-example (showing that it does not really refute the truth of your premise). Arguments that are not valid, not very strong, commit fallacies, or that have counter-examples that are not adequately addressed will not receive full credit.

Provide supporting evidence for the premises of your argument. [Approximately 350 words]

·         Pay special attention to those premises that could be seen as controversial. Evidence may include academic research sources, supporting arguments (arguments whose conclusions are premises of the main argument), or other ways of demonstrating the truth of those premises. This section should include at least one scholarly research source.

Explain a strong objection to your argument. [Approximately 250 words]

·         Study what people on the other side of this question think about your reasoning and present the best possible objection that someone could have to your argument. Do not commit the straw man fallacy here. Reference at least one scholarlyresearch source. See the “Practicing Effective Criticism” section of Chapter 9 of the course text for more information.

Defend your argument against the objection. [Approximately 200 words]

·         Once you have presented the objection, indicate clearly how you might respond to it. It is acceptable to admit that reasonable people might disagree with you or that there might be an area in which your argument could be further strengthened, but you should do your best to explain why your argument is sound or cogent despite the objections.

Provide an appropriate conclusion. [Approximately 75 words]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rogerian Argument about Facebook

Introduction

            Social networking sites (SNS) are a rapidly growing segment of social interaction all over the world. (McCafferty19)They serve as a source of information for individuals and groups as well as a source of relative connectivity between individuals who know one another in the real world and to allow connections between people who share common interests but might not know one another outside a SNS. (Houghton &Joinson 75) The interconnectivity of the sites, in this paper the focus will be on Facebook the most popular of the SNS service, can serve as a foundational support network for information and to build and or maintain social connections, yet it also has the potential to leave individuals vulnerable to fraudulent and bad behaviors by others as well as a public arena for the exposition of one’s own bad behaviors. Some people claim that the potential for connectivity, and especially international connectivity issues associated with a global world view, mandate the support of the broader community for SNS sites and activities. (McCafferty) Conversely others argue that the potential for violations of privacy and inappropriate (or illegal) activities make SNS an insurmountable threat to individuals that should be tightly controlled if not stopped all together.  (Kugler) (Haughton &Joinson) (Chaulk& Jones)

            The reality is that with the advent of almost any new technology there are both positive and negative possible outcomes, and in the case of social networking sites the potential of each can be exponential. Therefore Facebook should have high levels of easy to use choice on the part of the consumer, as to what he or she is willing to share and with who and should also have a low level of tolerance for illegal and bad behavior on the part of users all while protecting this functional and useful new social tool. (McCafferty) (Kayri1 &Çakır) (Kodrich&Laituri) (Carroll & Landry)

           

Argument in Favor of Greater Controls or Elimination of Facebook

            Facebook can and often does create conflict in interpersonal relationships through inappropriate behaviors of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and therefore offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem benign to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. (Chaulk& Jones 246) The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. (Houghton &Joinson 82)  In some recent examples the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly sever reactions in those involved, while others were sanctioned with job loss as a result of online posts on his or her SNS page. (Houghton &Joinson 77)

            These situations and others bring to mind a need to carefully control the venue of the SNS, so that individuals are in the least aware of the possibility of connectivity associated with posting and or the posting activities of others. This is also to say nothing of the two other important issues that can be seen in SNS activity, cyber-bullying or stalking and fraudulent economic scams. (Chaulk& Jones) (Kugler) Lastly there is also a valid argument that has been present prior to Facebook where psychologists and others fear harm to introverted individuals because the venue allows them to avoid real life social contact. (Ryan&Xenos) The kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook and other SNS sites, which create at least the illusion of anonymity and protection by distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrate fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and occur often, some with relatively minor results and others with rare but disastrous results.

            Privacy violations, though they are subjective likely occur every second though the majority is relatively minor, no more common than in real life social interactions but multiplied by thousands and millions based on the connectivity of so many people many of whom have access to Facebook 24-7. In other words because individuals cannot interact with 130 (the average number of Facebook user friends) known people in the physical world in any given day the odds of offense or even real or perceived harm increase exponentially in both directions. (Houghton &Joinson75) In this context the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more unsecure features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. (Strand 11) (Ryan&Xenos)Additionally, the standard idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

Argument in Favor of Protection or Even Expansion of Facebook

            The converse argument also holds water as it is very clear that the potential for human social gain is as great if not greater than the potential for harm and therefore should be protected, without concern for the potential for harm. Human beings all over the world can connect in real time, as events occur and make a real positive difference to one another. Some examples in the literature include the incomparable activity associated with recent natural disasters, such as was seen in the Haiti earthquake. Individuals and groups had access to rapid information about the disaster, the human toll and the needs of the people and other more fortunate individuals even responded with an unprecedented amount of aid revolving around Facebook and other SNS sites. (Kodrich&Laituri 626)

            There is a clear sense that in many instances the opportunity to connect to cultural ideas and ideals different from one’s own is also potentially promising in ways in which it has never been before. Prior to the internet and the connectivity of Facebook there has been only a limited opportunity for cultural interaction as travel is usually relegated to the elite, many locations and cultures are hard to reach and language barriers are frustrating, so what was left for most was the ability to view still shots in newspapers and magazines and read or listen to the interpretations of an outsider.

Consider these numbers: Facebookis poised to hit 700 million users and,as seven of 10 Facebook members resideoutside the U.S., more than 70global-language translations. …In termsof daily usage, Facebook generates thesecond-most traffic of any site in theworld…(McCafferty 19)

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to global social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility for enormous social and cultural sharing.  (Ryan &Xenos 1660) (McCafferty) (Kodrich&Laituri) These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other potential harm from exposure.  In this context is also the point where the culture in which we live has become increasingly mobile in the last 100 years and therefore it is much more common for individuals and origin families to be living very far from their place of birth and therefore their origin culture and family.

            This may leave some people lonely for the familiar and in serious need for a communication tool that in the very least makes people they have known in other places accessible at any time. There is a clear sense that this type of assurance is enough to calm the loneliness of a new place, and especially for children and teens. (Chaulk& Landry 245) (Kayri&Çakır) The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered by Facebook and other SNS sites and applications.

Common Ground

            The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is actually rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and at least some credence given to the ways in which individuals and Facebook itself can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. The resulting protections would ultimately create an environment that would meet the needs of both views by ultimately protecting the user and creating a situation that would enhance rather than demean human social interaction. Though the latter view would like to see fewer controls and the former view would like to see far more the ultimate and ideal would be a format that allowed sharing in such a way that individual harm was severely mitigated and individual gain was ultimately prosperous.

            Such protections could be woven into the usability of Facebook in such a way that users could easily find the information they needed to protect themselves and their children from bad or illegal behavior and from sharing that is inappropriate in one way or the other without relying solely on the consumer to beware the pitfalls of sharing their information.  Facebook could monitor the system in such a way that lesser damage is done and also actively pursue violators of cyber illegality. On a more general note many of the controls and laws associated with new internet technologies have yet to be developed as such technologies are so new and the level to which the law and government should or can interfere or control social media is a grey area that will likely become more and more illuminated in the next 10-20 years. The desire of course is to have a completely safe environment for users but freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of association curtail most invasively serious mandated controls. It is for this reason and others that the two seemingly opposing views can and should come together to help create a system that is safer than it has been in the past and protects consumers in unseen ways from the potential for harm.

            This is not to say that the whole of the Facebook system should line by line censor what individuals post and that consumer education is not a key aspect of this common ground. In other words individuals need to be counseled that they should not post anything they would not want a criminal or their grandmother to read. Additionally the expansion of positive opportunities for cultural exchange should be supported and even advanced within the confines of fair exchange and positive social networking and even opportunities for education. (Kayri&Çakır) The whole world is literally at our fingertips and we can choose to control it in such a way that our efforts mitigate harm to others. 

            The opposing sides can come together on the primary point of each, that human harm should be reduced and human opportunity should be expanded. The potential for human cultural and social interaction is so great with regard to Facebook and other SNS that the common ground should be recognized as a valid position that ultimately demonstrates greater protection while expanding and protecting the possibility for greater human interaction that is present in Facebook.

Conclusion

            The potential for harm associated with Facebook often revolves around the idea that conflict is inherently bad, regardless of the fact that such conflict often creates opportunities for learning in an environment that is wholly new and infinitely malleable. This can be true to a large degree for both younger and older users of the Facebook application. All users but especially younger users should be cautioned about the misuse of the tool but the tool itself should also bend people in the direction of safety, allowing controls and user preferences clear access and easily understandable ways to protect themselves and their information. A policy change is definitely in order, regarding the utilization of controls and even possibly tutorials that aide in reassessing privacy controls and allow users to rapidly and easily change settings and affiliations to protect themselves prior to events of possible harm. This should certainly include age controls where certain settings and or information variables are not even accessible by those in certain age groups and where individuals are made to clearly understand that regardless of how protected they believe they are, just as has always been true everything one posts online should be considered by that individual as public information, therefore if one does not want anyone or even a chosen few to know the information then he or she should simply not post it. Individuals must also be made aware that to some degree their information is timeless, in that information long outdated can still be present in some form online and again take credence to control what they say and post.


 

Works Cited

Carroll, Brian, and Katie Landry. “Logging On And Letting Out: Using Online Social Networks To Grieve And To Mourn.” Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society 30.5 (2010): 341-349. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=53744338& site=ehost-live

Chaulk, Kasey, and Tim Jones. “Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further Concerns About Facebook.” Journal Of Family Violence 26.4 (2011): 245-254. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=60104316& site=ehost-live

Houghton, David J. and Adam N. Joinson. “Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations”

            Journal of Technology in Human Services 28. 1-2 (2010) 74-94. doi:

            10.1080/15228831003770775  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228831003770775

Kayri, Murat andÖzlemÇakır “An Applied Study om Educational Use of Facebook as a Web 2.0 Tool: the Sample Lesson of Computer Networks and Communication.”  International Journal of Computer Science &Information  Technology 2.4 (August 2010): 48-58 doi : 10.5121/ijcsit.2010.2405 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.0402.pdf

Khodrich, Kris and Melinda Laituri “Making a Connection: Social Media’s Key Role in the Coverage of the Haiti Earthquake and in the Relief Efforts”Journal of Communication and Computer 8 (2011) 624-627

Kugler, Logan. “Spot And Avoid Facebook Scams.” PC World 29.8 (2011): 35-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=62865686&site=ehost-live

McCafferty, Dennis. “Brave, New Social World.” Communications Of The ACM 54.7 (2011): 19-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.doi :10.1145/1965724.1965732

Tracii Ryan and Sophia Xenos. “Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage”


To insert individual citation into a bibliography in a word-processor, select your preferred citation style below and drag-and-drop it into the document.

Computers in Human Behavior (08 March 2011) doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211000379

Strand, John L. “Facebook: Trademarks, Fan Pages, And Community Pages.” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal 23.1 (2011): 10-13. Business Source Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=56552425&site=ehost-live

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Facebook one can and often does create conflict through actions of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and, therefore, offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly aggressive, invasive or be incriminating to others.

P1: Facebook often creates conflict from it users through inappropriate behaviors

P2: Facebook is in need of greater controls or elimination

C: Therefore,Facebook should have stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself. 

Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. In some recent examples, the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly severe reactions in those involved, while others were fired from their job as a result of online posts on his or her Facebook page. (Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N., 2010)

This kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook, which creates, at least, the illusion of anonymity and protection of distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrates fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and often occur, some with relatively low results and others with extraordinary but disastrous results.

In this context, the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. Additionally, the basic idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self-protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

The design of Facebook is geared toward encouraging “social interaction in a virtual environment. In general, communication is facilitated by information posted in the profile (i.e., the user’s personal page), which often includes a photograph of the member and personal information describing his or her interests, both of which provide information about one’s identity.

P1: Facebook can and has allowed Individuals and groups to access rapid information, such as national disaster.

P2: Facebook user can connect in real-time as events occur and post info on Disaster Message Board.

C: Therefore, Facebook links in real-time, as events occur allowing people to streamline post-disaster communications even further.

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility of enormous social and cultural sharing.

Now, with a feature launched by Facebook, users can update people about their safety during disasters. With “Safety Check,” users can let friends and family know whether they’re safe when an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster hits. Employing the city listed in user profiles, the latest check-in spot or the location from which users are accessing the Internet, Facebook will activate the tool and determine who is in the affected area, sending a notification regarding someone’s safety. (Disaster Response on Facebook, 2009)

Users have the option to tap “I’m safe” or “I’m not in the area,” and to mark friends as safe as well. The choice will generate a newsfeed story. If users have friends in an affected area who are marked as safe, they’ll receive a notification that will take them to a Security Check bookmark with a list of updates. As millions prepare for a potential disaster, Facebook has added one more tool to the arsenal of preparedness one that concerned mothers will surely appreciate.

The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and, at least, some authority is given to the ways in which individuals can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other possible harm from exposure. The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered Facebook and its application.

 I can tell you first hand that disaster message board will help not only one family but many others as well. With of fear and stress that was being felt during a disaster such the attacks on the World Trade Centerare tremendous. At the time of the attacks, my wife worked two blocks away from this catastrophic event. As she was explaining to me, her experiences from of that day, she mentioned that all landline were down, and cellphone were very expensive to own and even worse the reception on mobile phones was spotty at best. So it took her five days to get in contact with her parents that livedon the west coast to ensure themthat she and her sister were OK.  She tried to put into words about how she felt after finally connected her mother and how they both rejoiced with every word; there was a quiver of her lip as she’s holding back her tears.If this type of technology existed,it could have eased the pain and suffering of a least one parent fearing that she lost her two daughters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Disaster Response on Facebook. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/: https://www.facebook.com/disaster

Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N. (2010). Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services 28, 77.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case you need an assignment done, hire us. Using our writing services will make your life easier because we deliver exceptional results. Use us to get an A!

We are the Best!

course-preview

275 words per page

You essay will be 275 words per page. Tell your writer how many words you need, or the pages.


12 pt Times New Roman

Unless otherwise stated, we use 12pt Arial/Times New Roman as the font for your paper.


Double line spacing

Your essay will have double spaced text. View our sample essays.


Any citation style

APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, our writers are experts at formatting.


We Accept

Secure Payment
Image 3

PHI 103

Does Social Media enhance interpersonal relationships

Explain the topic you are addressing and your position on it. Provide a preview of your paper and a statement of your thesis in your opening paragraph. [Approximately 100 words] Present your main argument for your thesis in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line. Clearly indicate whether your argument is intended to be inductive or deductive. Follow up the presentation of your argument by clarifying the meaning of any premises that could use some explanation. [About 150 words]

·         If your argument is deductive, then it should be valid (in the strict logical sense of the word); if it is inductive, then it should be strong. Make sure to avoid committing logical fallacies within your argument (e.g., begging the question). Additionally, the premises should be true, to the best of your knowledge. If one of your premises has a pretty obvious counter-example, then you should either fix the argument so that it does not have this flaw, or later, in your paper (steps three through five) you should address the apparent counter-example (showing that it does not really refute the truth of your premise). Arguments that are not valid, not very strong, commit fallacies, or that have counter-examples that are not adequately addressed will not receive full credit.

Provide supporting evidence for the premises of your argument. [Approximately 350 words]

·         Pay special attention to those premises that could be seen as controversial. Evidence may include academic research sources, supporting arguments (arguments whose conclusions are premises of the main argument), or other ways of demonstrating the truth of those premises. This section should include at least one scholarly research source.

Explain a strong objection to your argument. [Approximately 250 words]

·         Study what people on the other side of this question think about your reasoning and present the best possible objection that someone could have to your argument. Do not commit the straw man fallacy here. Reference at least one scholarlyresearch source. See the “Practicing Effective Criticism” section of Chapter 9 of the course text for more information.

Defend your argument against the objection. [Approximately 200 words]

·         Once you have presented the objection, indicate clearly how you might respond to it. It is acceptable to admit that reasonable people might disagree with you or that there might be an area in which your argument could be further strengthened, but you should do your best to explain why your argument is sound or cogent despite the objections.

Provide an appropriate conclusion. [Approximately 75 words]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rogerian Argument about Facebook

Introduction

            Social networking sites (SNS) are a rapidly growing segment of social interaction all over the world. (McCafferty19)They serve as a source of information for individuals and groups as well as a source of relative connectivity between individuals who know one another in the real world and to allow connections between people who share common interests but might not know one another outside a SNS. (Houghton &Joinson 75) The interconnectivity of the sites, in this paper the focus will be on Facebook the most popular of the SNS service, can serve as a foundational support network for information and to build and or maintain social connections, yet it also has the potential to leave individuals vulnerable to fraudulent and bad behaviors by others as well as a public arena for the exposition of one’s own bad behaviors. Some people claim that the potential for connectivity, and especially international connectivity issues associated with a global world view, mandate the support of the broader community for SNS sites and activities. (McCafferty) Conversely others argue that the potential for violations of privacy and inappropriate (or illegal) activities make SNS an insurmountable threat to individuals that should be tightly controlled if not stopped all together.  (Kugler) (Haughton &Joinson) (Chaulk& Jones)

            The reality is that with the advent of almost any new technology there are both positive and negative possible outcomes, and in the case of social networking sites the potential of each can be exponential. Therefore Facebook should have high levels of easy to use choice on the part of the consumer, as to what he or she is willing to share and with who and should also have a low level of tolerance for illegal and bad behavior on the part of users all while protecting this functional and useful new social tool. (McCafferty) (Kayri1 &Çakır) (Kodrich&Laituri) (Carroll & Landry)

           

Argument in Favor of Greater Controls or Elimination of Facebook

            Facebook can and often does create conflict in interpersonal relationships through inappropriate behaviors of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and therefore offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem benign to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. (Chaulk& Jones 246) The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. (Houghton &Joinson 82)  In some recent examples the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly sever reactions in those involved, while others were sanctioned with job loss as a result of online posts on his or her SNS page. (Houghton &Joinson 77)

            These situations and others bring to mind a need to carefully control the venue of the SNS, so that individuals are in the least aware of the possibility of connectivity associated with posting and or the posting activities of others. This is also to say nothing of the two other important issues that can be seen in SNS activity, cyber-bullying or stalking and fraudulent economic scams. (Chaulk& Jones) (Kugler) Lastly there is also a valid argument that has been present prior to Facebook where psychologists and others fear harm to introverted individuals because the venue allows them to avoid real life social contact. (Ryan&Xenos) The kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook and other SNS sites, which create at least the illusion of anonymity and protection by distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrate fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and occur often, some with relatively minor results and others with rare but disastrous results.

            Privacy violations, though they are subjective likely occur every second though the majority is relatively minor, no more common than in real life social interactions but multiplied by thousands and millions based on the connectivity of so many people many of whom have access to Facebook 24-7. In other words because individuals cannot interact with 130 (the average number of Facebook user friends) known people in the physical world in any given day the odds of offense or even real or perceived harm increase exponentially in both directions. (Houghton &Joinson75) In this context the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more unsecure features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. (Strand 11) (Ryan&Xenos)Additionally, the standard idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

Argument in Favor of Protection or Even Expansion of Facebook

            The converse argument also holds water as it is very clear that the potential for human social gain is as great if not greater than the potential for harm and therefore should be protected, without concern for the potential for harm. Human beings all over the world can connect in real time, as events occur and make a real positive difference to one another. Some examples in the literature include the incomparable activity associated with recent natural disasters, such as was seen in the Haiti earthquake. Individuals and groups had access to rapid information about the disaster, the human toll and the needs of the people and other more fortunate individuals even responded with an unprecedented amount of aid revolving around Facebook and other SNS sites. (Kodrich&Laituri 626)

            There is a clear sense that in many instances the opportunity to connect to cultural ideas and ideals different from one’s own is also potentially promising in ways in which it has never been before. Prior to the internet and the connectivity of Facebook there has been only a limited opportunity for cultural interaction as travel is usually relegated to the elite, many locations and cultures are hard to reach and language barriers are frustrating, so what was left for most was the ability to view still shots in newspapers and magazines and read or listen to the interpretations of an outsider.

Consider these numbers: Facebookis poised to hit 700 million users and,as seven of 10 Facebook members resideoutside the U.S., more than 70global-language translations. …In termsof daily usage, Facebook generates thesecond-most traffic of any site in theworld…(McCafferty 19)

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to global social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility for enormous social and cultural sharing.  (Ryan &Xenos 1660) (McCafferty) (Kodrich&Laituri) These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other potential harm from exposure.  In this context is also the point where the culture in which we live has become increasingly mobile in the last 100 years and therefore it is much more common for individuals and origin families to be living very far from their place of birth and therefore their origin culture and family.

            This may leave some people lonely for the familiar and in serious need for a communication tool that in the very least makes people they have known in other places accessible at any time. There is a clear sense that this type of assurance is enough to calm the loneliness of a new place, and especially for children and teens. (Chaulk& Landry 245) (Kayri&Çakır) The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered by Facebook and other SNS sites and applications.

Common Ground

            The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is actually rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and at least some credence given to the ways in which individuals and Facebook itself can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. The resulting protections would ultimately create an environment that would meet the needs of both views by ultimately protecting the user and creating a situation that would enhance rather than demean human social interaction. Though the latter view would like to see fewer controls and the former view would like to see far more the ultimate and ideal would be a format that allowed sharing in such a way that individual harm was severely mitigated and individual gain was ultimately prosperous.

            Such protections could be woven into the usability of Facebook in such a way that users could easily find the information they needed to protect themselves and their children from bad or illegal behavior and from sharing that is inappropriate in one way or the other without relying solely on the consumer to beware the pitfalls of sharing their information.  Facebook could monitor the system in such a way that lesser damage is done and also actively pursue violators of cyber illegality. On a more general note many of the controls and laws associated with new internet technologies have yet to be developed as such technologies are so new and the level to which the law and government should or can interfere or control social media is a grey area that will likely become more and more illuminated in the next 10-20 years. The desire of course is to have a completely safe environment for users but freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of association curtail most invasively serious mandated controls. It is for this reason and others that the two seemingly opposing views can and should come together to help create a system that is safer than it has been in the past and protects consumers in unseen ways from the potential for harm.

            This is not to say that the whole of the Facebook system should line by line censor what individuals post and that consumer education is not a key aspect of this common ground. In other words individuals need to be counseled that they should not post anything they would not want a criminal or their grandmother to read. Additionally the expansion of positive opportunities for cultural exchange should be supported and even advanced within the confines of fair exchange and positive social networking and even opportunities for education. (Kayri&Çakır) The whole world is literally at our fingertips and we can choose to control it in such a way that our efforts mitigate harm to others. 

            The opposing sides can come together on the primary point of each, that human harm should be reduced and human opportunity should be expanded. The potential for human cultural and social interaction is so great with regard to Facebook and other SNS that the common ground should be recognized as a valid position that ultimately demonstrates greater protection while expanding and protecting the possibility for greater human interaction that is present in Facebook.

Conclusion

            The potential for harm associated with Facebook often revolves around the idea that conflict is inherently bad, regardless of the fact that such conflict often creates opportunities for learning in an environment that is wholly new and infinitely malleable. This can be true to a large degree for both younger and older users of the Facebook application. All users but especially younger users should be cautioned about the misuse of the tool but the tool itself should also bend people in the direction of safety, allowing controls and user preferences clear access and easily understandable ways to protect themselves and their information. A policy change is definitely in order, regarding the utilization of controls and even possibly tutorials that aide in reassessing privacy controls and allow users to rapidly and easily change settings and affiliations to protect themselves prior to events of possible harm. This should certainly include age controls where certain settings and or information variables are not even accessible by those in certain age groups and where individuals are made to clearly understand that regardless of how protected they believe they are, just as has always been true everything one posts online should be considered by that individual as public information, therefore if one does not want anyone or even a chosen few to know the information then he or she should simply not post it. Individuals must also be made aware that to some degree their information is timeless, in that information long outdated can still be present in some form online and again take credence to control what they say and post.


 

Works Cited

Carroll, Brian, and Katie Landry. “Logging On And Letting Out: Using Online Social Networks To Grieve And To Mourn.” Bulletin Of Science, Technology & Society 30.5 (2010): 341-349. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=53744338& site=ehost-live

Chaulk, Kasey, and Tim Jones. “Online Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Further Concerns About Facebook.” Journal Of Family Violence 26.4 (2011): 245-254. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=60104316& site=ehost-live

Houghton, David J. and Adam N. Joinson. “Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations”

            Journal of Technology in Human Services 28. 1-2 (2010) 74-94. doi:

            10.1080/15228831003770775  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15228831003770775

Kayri, Murat andÖzlemÇakır “An Applied Study om Educational Use of Facebook as a Web 2.0 Tool: the Sample Lesson of Computer Networks and Communication.”  International Journal of Computer Science &Information  Technology 2.4 (August 2010): 48-58 doi : 10.5121/ijcsit.2010.2405 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.0402.pdf

Khodrich, Kris and Melinda Laituri “Making a Connection: Social Media’s Key Role in the Coverage of the Haiti Earthquake and in the Relief Efforts”Journal of Communication and Computer 8 (2011) 624-627

Kugler, Logan. “Spot And Avoid Facebook Scams.” PC World 29.8 (2011): 35-36. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=62865686&site=ehost-live

McCafferty, Dennis. “Brave, New Social World.” Communications Of The ACM 54.7 (2011): 19-21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.doi :10.1145/1965724.1965732

Tracii Ryan and Sophia Xenos. “Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the relationship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook usage”


To insert individual citation into a bibliography in a word-processor, select your preferred citation style below and drag-and-drop it into the document.

Computers in Human Behavior (08 March 2011) doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563211000379

Strand, John L. “Facebook: Trademarks, Fan Pages, And Community Pages.” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal 23.1 (2011): 10-13. Business Source Premier. Web. 8 Nov. 2011. http://0-search.ebscohost.com.library.pcc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=56552425&site=ehost-live

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Facebook one can and often does create conflict through actions of its users. The kind of conflict it generates can be associated with information sharing that is beyond acceptable to “all” of one’s connections and, therefore, offensive or even incriminating to self or others. Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly aggressive, invasive or be incriminating to others.

P1: Facebook often creates conflict from it users through inappropriate behaviors

P2: Facebook is in need of greater controls or elimination

C: Therefore,Facebook should have stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself. 

Something that might seem non-threatening to one person might turn out to be highly offensive, invasive or incriminating to others. The resulting circumstances can be surprising and emotionally stressful for some involved. In some recent examples, the shaming of an individual for public actions that were seen as offensive by some created reportedly severe reactions in those involved, while others were fired from their job as a result of online posts on his or her Facebook page. (Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N., 2010)

This kind of connectivity that feeds such offensive results is made possible only by the very existence of Facebook, which creates, at least, the illusion of anonymity and protection of distance for the knowing offender but also demonstrates fertile ground for self-incrimination by sharing of information that others might see as a violation of privacy. The arguments that support the dismantling or the mandating of severe legal and therefore (physical) restrictions are supported by the fact that these events occur and often occur, some with relatively low results and others with extraordinary but disastrous results.

In this context, the validity of stricter controls and even the elimination of some more free features or even the site itself seem plausible as like many other forms of technology the potential for human harm is great. Additionally, the basic idea that the consumer is ultimately responsible for self-protection seems to be lacking in this instance as so much becomes out of control in a web of infinite connectivity.

The design of Facebook is geared toward encouraging “social interaction in a virtual environment. In general, communication is facilitated by information posted in the profile (i.e., the user’s personal page), which often includes a photograph of the member and personal information describing his or her interests, both of which provide information about one’s identity.

P1: Facebook can and has allowed Individuals and groups to access rapid information, such as national disaster.

P2: Facebook user can connect in real-time as events occur and post info on Disaster Message Board.

C: Therefore, Facebook links in real-time, as events occur allowing people to streamline post-disaster communications even further.

Though some would argue that the manner in which users use Facebook does not always lend itself to social interaction, i.e. that individuals usually only interact directly with those they know in real life or on topical levels with those they do not, this does not negate the context of the possibility of enormous social and cultural sharing.

Now, with a feature launched by Facebook, users can update people about their safety during disasters. With “Safety Check,” users can let friends and family know whether they’re safe when an earthquake, hurricane or other natural disaster hits. Employing the city listed in user profiles, the latest check-in spot or the location from which users are accessing the Internet, Facebook will activate the tool and determine who is in the affected area, sending a notification regarding someone’s safety. (Disaster Response on Facebook, 2009)

Users have the option to tap “I’m safe” or “I’m not in the area,” and to mark friends as safe as well. The choice will generate a newsfeed story. If users have friends in an affected area who are marked as safe, they’ll receive a notification that will take them to a Security Check bookmark with a list of updates. As millions prepare for a potential disaster, Facebook has added one more tool to the arsenal of preparedness one that concerned mothers will surely appreciate.

The common ground that exists between these two seemingly opposing views is rather significant as each would like to see the positive outweigh the negative in as many ways as possible. Each would like to see the individual protected and, at least, some authority is given to the ways in which individuals can mitigate harm through user options, awareness and site controls. These interactions which can be viewed as either positive or negative demonstrate a potential for cultural sharing that should not be curtailed despite the opportunity for fraud and or any other possible harm from exposure. The potential for harm for most is nearly completely negated by the potential for good that is offered Facebook and its application.

 I can tell you first hand that disaster message board will help not only one family but many others as well. With of fear and stress that was being felt during a disaster such the attacks on the World Trade Centerare tremendous. At the time of the attacks, my wife worked two blocks away from this catastrophic event. As she was explaining to me, her experiences from of that day, she mentioned that all landline were down, and cellphone were very expensive to own and even worse the reception on mobile phones was spotty at best. So it took her five days to get in contact with her parents that livedon the west coast to ensure themthat she and her sister were OK.  She tried to put into words about how she felt after finally connected her mother and how they both rejoiced with every word; there was a quiver of her lip as she’s holding back her tears.If this type of technology existed,it could have eased the pain and suffering of a least one parent fearing that she lost her two daughters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Disaster Response on Facebook. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/: https://www.facebook.com/disaster

Houghton, David J. and Joinson, Adam N. (2010). Privacy, Social Network Sites, and Social Relations. Journal of Technology in Human Services 28, 77.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case you need an assignment done, hire us. Using our writing services will make your life easier because we deliver exceptional results. Use us to get an A!

We are the Best!

course-preview

275 words per page

You essay will be 275 words per page. Tell your writer how many words you need, or the pages.


12 pt Times New Roman

Unless otherwise stated, we use 12pt Arial/Times New Roman as the font for your paper.


Double line spacing

Your essay will have double spaced text. View our sample essays.


Any citation style

APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, our writers are experts at formatting.


We Accept

Secure Payment
Image 3

PHI 103

Counterargument Paper

This paper assignment expands upon your Week One Assignment and prepares you for the Final Paper. The expansion is to learn to improve one’s argument after investigating and fairly representing the opposite point of view. The main new tasks are to revise your previous argument created in Week One, to present a counterargument (an argument for a contrary conclusion), and to develop an objection to your original argument.

Here are the steps to prepare to write the counterargument paper:

  • Begin reviewing your previous paper paying particular attention to suggestions for improvement made by your instructor.
  • Revise your argument, improving it as much as possible, accounting for any suggestions and in light of further material you have learned in the course. If your argument is inductive, make sure that it is strong. If your argument is deductive, make sure that it is valid.
  • Construct what you take to be the strongest possible argument for a conclusion contrary to the one you argued for in your Week One paper. This is your counterargument. This should be based on careful thought and appropriate research.
  • Consider the primary points of disagreement between the point of view of your original argument and that of the counterargument.
  • Think about what you take to be the strongest objection to your original argument and how you might answer the objection while being fair to both sides. Search in the Ashford University Library for quality academic sources that support some aspect of your argument or counterargument.

In your paper,

  • Present a revised argument in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line.
  • Present a counterargument in standard form, with each premise and the conclusion on a separate line.
  • Provide support for each premise of your counterargument. Clarify the meaning of the premise and supporting evidence for the premise.
    • Pay special attention to those premises that could be seen as controversial. Evidence may include academic research sources, supporting arguments, or other ways of demonstrating the truth of the premise (for more ideas about how to support the truth of premises take a look at the instructor guidance for this week). This section should include at least one scholarly research source. For guidance about how to develop a conclusion see the Ashford Writing Center’s Introductions and Conclusions.
  • Explain how the conclusion of the counterargument follows from its premises. [One paragraph]
  • Discuss the primary points of disagreement between sincere and intelligent proponents of both sides. [One to two paragraphs]
    • For example, you might list any premises or background assumptions on which you think such proponents would disagree and briefly state what you see as the source of the disagreement, you could give a brief explanation of any reasoning that you think each side would find objectionable, or you could do a combination of these.
  • Present the best objectionto your original argument. Clearly indicate what part of the argument your objection is aimed at, and provide a paragraph of supporting evidence for the objection. Reference at least one scholarly research source. [One to two paragraphs]
    • See the “Practicing Effective Criticism” section of Chapter 9 of your primary textbook for more information about how to present an objection.

For further instruction on how to create arguments, see the How to Construct a Valid Main Argument and Tips for Creating an Inductively Strong Argument documents as well as the video Constructing Valid Arguments.

For an example of how to complete this paper, take a look at the following Week Three Annotated Example. Let your instructor know if you have questions about how to complete this paper.

 In this class, you have three tutoring services available: Paper Review, Live Chat, and Tutor E-mail. Click on the Ashford Writing Center (AWC) tab in the left-navigation menu to learn more about these tutoring options and how to get help with your writing.

The Counterargument Paper

  • Must be 500 to 800 words in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (for more information about using APA style, take a look at the APA Essay Checklist for Students webpage).
  • Must include a separate title page with the following:
    • Title of paper
    • Student’s name
    • Course name and number
    • Instructor’s name
    • Date submitted
  • Must use at least two scholarly sources in addition to the course text.
  • The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.
  • Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (for more information about how to create an APA reference list, take a look at the APA References List webpage).
  • Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center

Just in case you need an assignment done, hire us. Using our writing services will make your life easier because we deliver exceptional results. Use us to get an A!

We are the Best!

course-preview

275 words per page

You essay will be 275 words per page. Tell your writer how many words you need, or the pages.


12 pt Times New Roman

Unless otherwise stated, we use 12pt Arial/Times New Roman as the font for your paper.


Double line spacing

Your essay will have double spaced text. View our sample essays.


Any citation style

APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard, our writers are experts at formatting.


We Accept

Secure Payment
Image 3