Dr. M. K. kulshreshtha. SD College of Management. Israna. Panipat. India Kapil Kumar. SD College of Management. Israna. Panipat. Sumiti Sehgal SD College of Management. Israna. Panipat. Abstract Social networking sites such as Facebook. MySpace. and Twitter are amongst the most popular finishs on the web. No uncertainty in some instances this has contributed to Internet Addiction Disorder. but have they on the whole had a positive consequence in our lives? Some believe that the benefits provided by societal web sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as persons. and that. as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations. we will see an addition in their public-service corporation.
Anecdotal grounds of positive results from these engineerings — such as political activities organized via Facebook or occupations found through LinkedIn — is well-known. but now a turning principal of research on societal webs sites supports this position excessively. Social networking sites. such as Facebook. Twitter and MySpace are illustrations of communicating tools available online. With proliferation of societal networking online comes impact on society ; a difference in what people do and how they do it. Changes in society are at the same time utile and negative and this is the instance with the impact of on-line societal networking. This paper aims to look at the positive consequence that interaction through societal networking sites has on today’s society in relation to the modern media construct of greater interaction. Keywords Social Networking. positive effects. pros and cons. Changes in Society. offense. better relationship
I. INTRODUCTION Social Networking Sites ( SNS – Facebook. Myspace. ibibo etc. ) are. in one manner. great for integrity. They at the really basic degree. aid you to remain in contact with people. particularly. for illustration. friends from place while you’re off at university. and frailty versa. They besides allow you to let you to observe and retrieve past experiences ( exposures of school proms or grad balls ) . However. in some ways they help to perpetuate divisions between people and even within groups of friends. marginalising some people. For illustration. a wall station about the mirth of a bibulous friend being thrown out of a cabaret which receives several remarks from other people who were present. can be rather insulating to members of the group who were non present. and are hence left out of the in-joke. SNS can besides both overcome and perpetuate divisions between wider groups. There are presently. or have been at one clip. several rather extremist groups on Facebook ( anti-Islam groups. misogynous anti-women groups. etc. ) and these evidently aid to further disfavor and even hatred of certain societal groups.
Clearly. when these positions are being widely disseminated through the medium of SNS. they do hold the potency to hold a really negative impact on society. However. on the other manus. some groups and motions found on SNS can hold a positive ( or at least a impersonal ) impact. An obvious illustration would be the Facebook motion to acquire Rage against the Machine to the 2009 Christmas # 1 chart place in the UK. That is a really obvious illustration of how SNS are holding a really large impact. and that they can sometimes be used to demand alteration. Obviously. this didn’t alteration Torahs or halt wars. but it is possibly a taste tester of what grassroots motions on SNS can make. SNS can non needfully impact our society in immense ways. but they do hold the potency to hold an impact… Let’s merely hope they are used for good. instead than to assist distribute hatred. II. METHODOLOGY The best manner is to travel to the grass root degree.
We have used questionnaire with some closed ended and some unfastened ended inquiries. Stratified samples of different individuals in Haryana and Punjab were collected to understand the impact of Social Networking Sites in society. The information aggregation has been done in primary signifier by the research workers. The size of the sample is 150. III. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Various responses to the inquiries were statistically studied and so analyzed. Some of the of import findings were as follows: ? As expected. about everyone believes that Social Networking Sites have positive impacts on society. ? About 99 % people of society in the age group of 15 to 30 years surf cyberspace. ? Ratio of male and female utilizing cyberspace is 50 % -50 % . ? The age distribution of cyberspace users is as following:
Fig. 1. % age of cyberspace users acc. to age group ? Out of those who surf cyberspace. 94 % people are cognizant about the construct of societal networking sites.
Fig. 2. % age people awareness about SNS ? 90 % people have histories on societal networking sites ( from those who are cognizant about societal networking sites ) ? Facebook is the taking societal networking sites with maximal no. of histories as compared to orkut. chirrup and others.
Fig. 3. SNS with % of Accounts ? Facebook is the most popular Social networking site preferred by 83 % users. followed by orkut and twitte
Fig. 4. Most Preffered SNS Site ? Harmonizing to the study 62 % users surf the societal networking sites from place. 27 % from institute/office and merely 6 % from cyber cafe . ? 60 % of college/institutes have imposed prohibition on utilizing societal networking sites in premises. whereas merely 40 % institutions/colleges allow the entree of societal networking sites. ? 39 % users agree that these societal sites have negative impact on adolescents and 61 % agree that it helps in doing friends and keeping relationship.
Fig. 5. Negative Impact ‘As’ ( in % age of respondents ) ? Social networking sites are chiefly used for: ? Make new friends ( 25 % ) ? Get in touch with old friends ( 49 % ) ? Sharing files ( upload exposure & A ; pictures ) ? Create groups
Fig. 6. Social networking sites usage ? As users are cognizant about the negative impacts of societal networking sites. They believe that the most harmful consequence of societal negative site is that it makes the user tensed. The other negative impacts are apparent in the chart given below.
Fig. 7. Negative impact of SNS ? In malice of all the above negative impacts of societal networking sites on society. 82 % users says that societal networking sites should non be banned. As YouTube. chirrup and other web sites are banned in China.
Fig. 8. SNS Banned or Not ? In response to the inquiry asked why societal networking sites should be banned the users stated the undermentioned grounds in support to their replies. ? Botching the society and civilization ? Harmful for national security ? Effect pupils study ? Misused by bad elements of the society
Fig. 9. Why SNS should be Banned ? In the position of 12 % of the users. the societal networking sites should non be banned as these sites are ? Useful for pupils ? Useful for keeping relationship ? Useful for sharing files and information.
Fig. 10. Why SNS should non Ban
IV. CONCLUSION TODAY. WE are flooded with legion societal networking sites on the Internet like Orkut. Facebook etc. These societal networking sites create a practical universe with the chances for doing friends. chew the fating. sharing minutes etc. We see assortment of people on these sites. We have freedom to categorise them. freedom to pick and take them as our friend. as we do in our existent life. But there is a large difference ; we do non really run into them. However. these practical friends provide us with a platform where we can. without vacillation. portion our feelings. which otherwise we would non hold discussed face to face. Furthermore. in today’s fast universe. we have dearth of clip ; these sites furnish us with flexibleness of clip. We can reach our friends at our convenience and vice-versa. Besides. these sites breach the regional. national. cultural. societal boundaries for doing friends. cognizing them. understanding their civilization. tradition and supplying us the chance for cultural synthesis. However. the above said depicts merely one side of the coin.
If we are surfing on these societal networking sites and seting our personal inside informations on it. there is a opportunity of its abuse. In the past. we have heard of legion maltreatments on these sites like morphing of exposure etc. Besides. most of the information put on the societal networking sites is bogus. concocted or half truths. While traveling through these information’s we feel annoyed on one manus and besides develop the same wont of posting misdirecting information on the other. This manner it adds negatively to socio-psychological behaviour of the human being. The people are acquiring addicted to these sites day-by-day.
The Numberss of users is on the rise. This proves that eworld is taking its toll over the existent universe. The people are acquiring secluded. For the interest of Numberss. they have tonss of friends. but in world they are barren of good friends. This once more. affects human behaviour. Peoples are going individualistic. Social values are disappearing. In the terminal. we must repeat that. we must non develop this sentiment that societal networking sites are inherently non good. Indeed. they are good. but we should take personal attention that these sites should be used judiciously. We should post relevant information merely and non really personal 1s. so that. in future we do non repent it. Besides. information posted should be reliable. so that it becomes a beginning of consciousness non esthesis. Finally. we must be argus-eyed that e-world can non be a replacement for the existent universe. So. we need to larn to esteem the existent people…and existent life.
Mentions[ 1 ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www. merinews. com/article/impact-of-social-networking-sites-on-sociallife/157018. shtml [ 2 ] hypertext transfer protocol: //www. takeonit. com/question/278. aspx [ 3 ] hypertext transfer protocol: //yro. slashdot. org/story/06/09/20/1325238/The-Impact-of-Social-Networking-onSociety [ 4 ] Anderson. T. ( 2007 ) . Web 2. 0 and New Media Definitions. Retrieved April 22. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. newcommbiz. com/web-20-and-new-media-definitions/ [ 5 ] Bekhuis. T. ( n. d. ) . Self-help groups. Retrieved April 22. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. minddisorders. com/Py-Z/Self-help-groups. hypertext markup language [ 6 ] Boyd. D. . & A ; Ellison. N. ( 2007 ) . Social web sites: Definition. history. and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 13 ( 1 ) . article 11. Retrieved March 10. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //jcmc. Indiana. edu/vol13/issue1/boyd. Ellison. hypertext markup language [ 7 ] Bronk. C. ( 2008 ) . Convergence and Connectivity: 1 of 2. [ YouTube picture ] . Retrieved. April 21. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=2hA0Wx7ibYM & A ; feature=related [ 8 ] Brucks. A. . Mehnert. J. . Prommer. E. . & A ; Rader. A. ( 2008. November 28 ) . “Real life extension” in Web-based societal webs: The gendered building of ego among pupil. Paper presented at the 2008 European Communication Research and Education Association Conference. Barcelona. Retrieved April 1. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. protegiendoles. org/documentacion/estante4/StudiVZ_Englische_Praesentat ion. pdf [ 9 ] Chen-See. S. ( 2009 ) . The Internet: Breaking down barriers to communicating for deaf teens. Retrieved. April 22. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. aboutkidshealth. ca/News/TheInternet-Breaking-down-barriers-to-communication-for-deafteens. aspx? articleID=13453 & A ; categoryID=news-poh5 [ 10 ] Educational Benefits of Social Networking Sites Uncovered. ( 2008 ) . Retrieved March 10. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2008/06/080620133907. htm [ 11 ] Fox. P. ( 2009 ) . Friends and Neighbours. Retrieved March10. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. defender. co. uk/society/joepublic/2009/feb/03/communitiessocial-networking Greenstein. H. ( 2009 ) . Facebook Pages vs Facebook Groups: What’s the Difference? Retrieved March 10. 2010. from hypertext transfer protocol: //mashable. com/2009/05/27/facebookpage-vs-group/ [ 12 ] Hawkins. K.