The impact that online social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook have on America’s younger generations cannot be denied, regardless of whether one participates or not. This is highlighted in both Alice Mathias’s New York Times feature, “The Fakebook Generation,” and Dana Fleming’s New England Journal of Higher Education article, “Youthful Indiscretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?” Although both writers acknowledge the significance of these sites, they have differing views on their impact on America’s youth. The differences in their perspectives can be attributed to their backgrounds and the genres in which they express their opinions. Mathias, as a young woman on the verge of graduating college, shares her experiences and opinions on Facebook through her blog, which takes on a casual tone as she comments on a specific aspect of college life.
Mathias sees Facebook as a form of online community theater, where young people can craft and control their profiles to show only what they want their friends to see. In contrast, Fleming, a knowledgeable attorney, has written an article to inform educators about the negative aspects of social networking sites like Facebook. Her article serves as both a commentary and a serious warning.
Both writers agree that the appeal of these sites is primarily to the under 30 generation. Mathias believes this is true because, according to her, “My generation has long been bizarrely comfortable with being looked at…” (439). In her evaluation, she observes that people on these sites share a range of situations, from mundane to unflattering to explicit to downright ridiculous. Mathias acknowledges that these displays are often thoughtless but does not mention any potential consequences that may arise from such postings.
This, in turn, is the essence of Fleming’s article. Fleming emphasizes that students’ online identities and friendships have negative consequences as job recruiters, school administrators, law enforcement officers, and sexual predators can easily access their personal information through friending. Moreover, both writers highlight how students often accept friend requests from strangers without considering the potential risks. However, Mathias fails to mention what Fleming does: that by befriending someone, students are also leaving themselves vulnerable to potentially harmful situations.
In Fleming’s article, numerous instances are cited where users have faced severe consequences for their online activities, including being expelled from colleges, losing scholarship and job opportunities, damaging their reputations, and even becoming victims of heinous crimes. These examples serve to highlight the importance of educators recognizing the need to protect students’ privacy on websites like Facebook by enforcing the school’s code of conduct and applicable state and federal laws (443). The Mathias blog reflects a significant concern among students, which is not primarily about losing opportunities, defaming their character, or physical harm, but rather about losing their anonymity. The fear is that if the ability to privately search is compromised, Facebook will become a deserted platform (439). Consequently, Fleming emphasizes that the loss of anonymity comes at a cost (441), which may surpass the embarrassment of someone discovering that one has been excessively viewing another person’s profile.
Based on her blog and Fleming’s article, it is widely known among students that these sites provide different security options. However, a small number of students neglect the necessary time and effort to ensure their sites are truly secure. They also fail to acknowledge the irony of online privacy being practically non-existent. Consequently, Fleming discusses various programs and policies implemented throughout the United States aimed at taking on the responsibility that students are neglecting by protecting their privacy and overall welfare.
Mathias expresses concern that older generations may not recognize the importance of online forums as a temporary outlet for students, and fail to realize that these students will eventually mature and use networking sites as intended, as a legitimate social reference guide. The difference in perspectives between Mathias and the other writer seems to be influenced by the generation gap. Mathias’ viewpoint is shaped by her personal experience as a current college student and Facebook user.
Fleming sees the site as a harmless distraction for students who will eventually move on to other things. Fleming’s focus is on protecting students rather than participating in the site. She views Facebook and similar sites as potentially harmful to students’ future. Mathias’ blog, by not acknowledging certain aspects of these sites and their impact on students, seems to support Fleming’s argument.
