"in order to see how fully social media has been ingrained in our lives, we want to test your resolve. We propose a challenge: Who can survive without social media for two weeks? This means you can't update your status, send a tweet, +1 a post or "check in" to a restaurant. For two weeks you will only be able to engage with few online resources."
I'm sure the results will prove fascinating - but there is no &^%&^ way I'm taking part! Call me an addict if you'd like, but I don't think I'm alone in believing the whole exercise to be, in my world at least, totally impractical. I'm not an obsessive user of any particular site, but I use many of them on a regular basis.
And no, my hand isn't shaking uncontrollably at the mere thought (but does trembling count?) .
I don't "check in" anywhere, for the most part, so I wouldn't miss that sort of thing - but actions like posting blogs, uploading videos, are all forbidden. Chatting isn't allowed. Commenting on a YouTube video or a Facebook isn't allowed. Interacting through social media is simply banned.
The fact is, it's simply not practical. Social Media has become an integral part of the way I live my life - it's not only an efficient way of how I interact with friends (off and online), but it's an important part of my own personal (and constantly developing) business strategy. I can't give up social media for two weeks any more than I can give up my cell phone or email or simply leaving my home.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't disconnect (mostly) if I went on vacation, but at the moment, I'm workin' .
I look forward to the article - but I'm happy right here on the grid, thank you!
Completely impractical. How about an experiment where we all go two weeks without speaking to family, co-workers, local friends, or neighbors. Ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteWe are social animals by nature and to such degree that we drug and/or lock-up those who exhibit extreme anti-social behavior.
Yes, this is mostly new technology (I've been blogging for over a decade and using web chat boards for nearly two decades, so not all that new), but they are extensions of our most base need and desire to connect with others.
You can't fight nature, and I will not log off.
Agreed. Now, if we were FORCED to do without...well, that's an entirely different story....
ReplyDeleteBlogging is part of my job, so I wouldn't be able to stop doing that, but I think I'd be perfectly happy without Facebook -- to me it's a time-suck, and people can contact me via phone if they want to. I was out last night and there were several points throughout the evening where all conversation stopped so people could update their statuses/"like" stuff, etc. I may be in the minority here, but I found it very disappointing.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point, and not often discussed. It would be funny, if it wasn't so annoying...
ReplyDeleteI guess I just wonder if this is a herald of things to come. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Facebook/social networking, and yes, I post my little status updates all the time, too. But I worry that soon we'll be so plugged in, we won't have time for anything else.
ReplyDeleteAt the last job, I did some interviews with kids for internship positions. They were 20-21, so probably this was the first generation that grew up with decent computers and doesn't really remember a time when the internet wasn't there for them. And they *could not* interact properly. This wasn't just interview nerves, it was a complete inability to connect with the person standing in front of them. I suspect it was because they were so constantly plugged in, but maybe they were all just naturally socially inept...