Good question. The report of BCG analyze issues. https://www.bcg.com/documents/file101187.pdf

Good question. Maybe this is not from your angle, but The New Work Times just published an interview with an author of a new book on how social media can make us spend more time with it and make us come back to check again, becoming addicted. When people get addicted to this their brains release substances similar to those released when consuming addictive drugs, feeling pleasure short-term but building tolerance long-term and wanting more.

The book author also argues, we neglect personal interactions by using social media more, and we don't train our mental capabilities by staring at a screen and just consuming information. It's an insightful article, and probably an interesting book, too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/science/technology-addiction-irresistible-by-adam-alter.html?_r=0

 interesting links Darliane and Toni, but my question is even deeper than just an psyco-sociological issue. I wonder what are we doing to write the history of tomorrow!!!! I explain: our ancestors left physical evidences which wrote the history. What are we going to leave except a 'Like' and an 'Emoticon'?! :)

I'm not sure we will be able to tell. I'm sure there are things we leave for those who come after us. Only because it may not be the physical inventions of our ancestors, that doesn't mean there is nothing.

The internet and social media will define the future as much as they are defining the present, in terms of social interactions, economics, politics, science, engineering and more. My research on climate model data, for example, is much different than my advisor's work 20 years ago, just because of faster computers, online databases, and faster research exchange through online publishing and social networks like this one.

But our research is published!

What do you mean? I meant today we have online publishing as opposed to print-only publishing not too long ago which took a lot longer for new research to spread and get adopted and improved. In my opinion, this - and by proxy digital and social media - is a major (positive) impact we are having on future generations. Does that make sense?

It does ... but if we want to consider that the link you suggest is a cost, would social media be sustainable from a cost-benefit point of view?! Don't worry though, I am just thinking loud! :)

I think it depends on what you mean by "cost" in cost-benefit. Do you mean monetary cost or societal cost? I'm sure Facebook and the likes will continue to make profits. But from a social perspective I think social media is not doing much good.

We can give our opinion on Facebook without ever seeing the person's reaction or even knowing them, something that used to give us feedback on what we said (and maybe shouldn't have said). I think this will have an enormous impact on social interactions in the future. We live our lives more and more in the social media sphere and interact more and more with people through Facebook as opposed to in person, giving and receiving opinions through commenting in very different ways than we used to before social media.

Either way, I think this is a very complex question to answer.

I agree that it is a complex question, that is why I posted the question ... to begin warming up the ideas! :)

To add another tangent....

Social media enables me to do my job better. I'm a science writer and resources such as ResearchGate and online publication gives me access to research, data and scientists I would never have known about or had access to in the past.I just read the research of a scientist I interviewed before the call because he posted his work here.

I live in Ohio and interview scientists all over the world, read research from all over the world. This wasn't possible for before digital communications. Phone calls were too expensive, mailing research papers too slow and there certainly was no way to get to New Mexico to take pictures!

There are challenges, too, such as the flood of crap that is passed off as "research" and people calling themselves "experts" with few or fake credentials. That garbage spreads just as rapidly, if not faster, than the good stuff, so it's necessary to develop a more sensitive "bullshit meter" for analysis.

Another challenge is the cost of accessing online materials. I will email an author and ask for a paper because I simply can't afford to buy everything I need to support my work. Not at $35 a pop when I need 10 papers. If you want to leverage digital communications, please make your research available when asked. I'm happy to get some ink for your work, but I can't do it without your cooperation. So standards of professional courtesy also need to adapt to match the digital age. Those who refuse get crossed off my list, no matter how prominent they are.

There are pros and cons to both sides, just as there were pros and cons to listening the the neighbor who gossips over the backyard fence.

I sincerely doubt it will ever go away simply because human beings will always look for a fence or forum to share stories, tell tall tales and do all the things that social creatures do. It'll just keep evolving. I think behavioral science for the most viable resource to address this question....

Fair enough Margo, I do agree with you on the advantages of internet in general and not social media in particular (I mean facebook, whatsapp, instagram, etc...) which are mainly used as you mentioned for gossiping and which they definitely need a 'bullshit meter'! 

Cheers

Daniel

Daniel,

I have a Facebook page which I use it for my writing work. I belong to FB writer's groups which allow me connect me with freelance writers and sources around the world. I have a Twitter account for the same purpose - promoting published articles, finding sources, learning about editors/publications, finding new story ideas (e.g. newly published research), etc. Instagram - same. I just published a piece about the economic impact of sea turtle rescue and sent it out via all of my social media channels. It's getting more attention - more people reading it - because of those posts.

It's all about the motivation behind the engagement. I agree that seeking  15 minutes of fame is a serious driver behind much of the activity. But at the same time, my work-focus is also shared by those writers who use social media the same way. I write about sustainability and environmentalism, so my effort to raise awareness and education around these topics is also a personal motivation.

Call it social networking or social media, it's one of a number of forums for connecting with other people. I probably am not a good judge of how it's used by the general public simply because I don't fit into that category. So my perspective only shows that, like most controversial issues, there is no simple answer. An example: When I was writing about education technology, I saw how powerful FB, Twitters, etc. could be as a mean to engage kids in learning, developing essential critical thinking and problem solving skills and the equally powerful freak-out paranoia of adults who think anything they don't understand is inherently bad or "playing."

Social media can be used to create a positive impact, but it depends on the users. Wow, human as messy creatures, aren't we???

We are indeed! And I  am happy to hear that someone is using these media for a good reason! :)

And talking about sustainability and environmentalism, what is the difference between them? .... actually i will post another question if you'd like to share your experience! ;)

My definitions and those of scientists might be different - yes, a good question to pose.

Environmentalism - awareness of, concern about and action aimed at protecting the environment.

Sustainability - avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance (one sort of action referred to in environmentalism)

Make sense?