News | Story

A Lot More Than Simply Social Media Should Be Available On The Internet

A Lot More Than Simply Social Media Should Be Available On The Internet

image: Unsplash

What was the purpose of the internet’s creation? A random person on the street could respond with information exchange or the dissemination of ideas if you asked them this question.

This has been the case for the better part of the internet’s entire existence, if not all of it. During the Cold War, its early users — American researchers in the Department of Defense – were looking for a reliable mechanism to communicate information with one another. The selected network of spies, troops, and hired scholars has grown into a convoluted web of more than 3.4 billion individuals in the years since it was established. The internet is being used for various purposes these days, including planning missile attacks and the toppling of governments in South America. Somehow, the World Wide Web has evolved into something much eviler than before.

You may expect that providing internet access to billions of people will result in a greater variety of online activities. A small number of social media sites such as Facebook and TikTok are responsible for most online interactions. The message is evident if you add up the number of users from each firm. You are most likely on social media if you are on the internet. On any given day, about half of the world’s population uses one of these platforms, and at this point, many of us wouldn’t be able to function without them.

Social media has become associated with the internet in recent years. However, half of the whole globe has been confined to a few websites is not by chance. These sites serve as meeting places for a reason: they consciously take advantage of human behavior to increase participation. Even in the background, firms such as Amazon Web Services have consolidated their control over the infrastructure required for any internet. Undoubtedly, internet experiences have been monopolized by a small number of brand logos — and this has happened from the beginning.

What exactly do we stand to lose by regulating how individuals exist online? Because of the restricted number of channels available for connecting with the internet, we are forced to accept that our leisure time is commercialized. Content producers and communications professionals are compelled to engage in psychologically dubious platforms to maintain their positions emotionally.

We are inextricably linked to cycles of dopamine and self-comparison, which influence our attention, views, identities, and whole social lives. We are constantly being divided by more inflammatory information. Most of our social movements have been hijacked and fueled solely by hot air emanating from the social media platform Twitter.

Why are we settling for an online lifestyle that is only as diverse as the number of characters or seconds of video you are permitted to upload on a platform? Human communication is the most complex phenomenon globally. Yet, we’re reducing our chances of connecting with every live individual on the planet to a set of rules that Mark Zuckerberg unintentionally created in his spare time.

This will need some real outside-the-box thinking, as well as a significant investment of time and resources in correcting the oppressive patterns of monopolization that have already been codified into legislation. However, we are still in the early stages of one of the most bizarre and fascinating things civilization has ever accomplished, and it would be a shame if we were to remain in this state indefinitely.

Related News

Comment

Your email address will not be published.