The media reports things such as pride parades, protests, rising gas prices (among other types of inflation), wars going on, presidential platforms, and many other things that can be either agreed with or disagreed with.
If someone disagrees with any of these things they see in the media, then there's conflict right there.
If the media had not caused those conflicts, then there would have been less conflict.
And you are getting farther from families thats all needed to say a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a just a short a a
Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because... Uhh because...
Whilst undoubtedly social media at a local level does a good job of linking families and friends together, it is seen at a threat in multiple countries. We see places like China, Russia etc. try to contain how and where citizens interact on-line. AS a result citizens find way to undermine these censorship systems and in turn fuels their conspiracy views against the government. Conflict, as seen by the Arab Spring, is only a matter of a few posts away. I do not believe that many of the recent conflicts in the Arab world would have occurred without social media.
People may post a fact or the truth that people may or may not disagree with. Conflicts will then occur if both parties disagree with each other. This is a definition that I quoted from dictionaryonline.Com, "to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash" .. So basically, conflicts occur when both parties are not agreeable with one another. To conclude it does conflicts because no one is right and until the conflict is resolve is will continue forever.
Although I do agree that social media has given many people the opportunity to interact and enjoy a more leisurely lifestyle, more conflicts have been caused in the world because of social media. A great example of this a recent Hong Kong actor Anthony Wong Chau-sang said on Sina Weibo (Chinese twitter) that Traditional Chinese is superior to Simplified Chinese. He wouldn't have said that in public but he did on social media. Social media changes the way people connect with each other as there is no physical consequence of making a statement or opinion so people say things that may often be controversial.
Social media conflicts are seen more and more recently. Seriously though, if there wasn't social media there would be other forums for people to share their crimes. Before social media, there was a lot of conflict, but there was no social media outlet. There is basically the same amount of conflict, just people use Facebook or Twitter to express it.
Keeping in touch with family members that live far away can become much easier through the use of online social networking. By sharing updates, photos, videos, and messages, family members can stay connected even if the live across the country—or the world.
Also, youth can further explore topics that they’re interested in through online social networking. By making connections with other people who have the same interest, kids can learn and exchange knowledge with others they may not have had the opportunity to interact with.
To me, the only issue I really see with social media is it tends to limit or cut back on personal interactions with people. These days instead of approaching someone in person, some people, especially younger, figure they will just send them a quick text or a message on Facebook.
The mistake people make about social networking is the idea that people today do more of X or less of Y than all previous generations; even if this is true, the point is over drawn. The thing about social media is that it makes everything visible; political scandals didn't start around the time of the first newspapers or TV broadcasts, and conflicts don't start more often because they're being talked about more when they do.
From time to time, social media has actually been used to solve conflicts in the world. Social media hasn't made more problems than solutions for world issues. Quick reporting and action allows people to use social media to benefit the world during crises, which many people would like to pretend doesn't happen.
Social media has helped spread revolutions such as those in Iran, Tunisia and Egypt. Those aren't necessarily conflicts but more like social game-changers. Social media doesn't cause more conflicts, people's reactions cause conflicts. Just like guns don't kill people, social media doesn't start wars. Social media is a great way to stay in touch and spread news when there aren't any other options.
No, the use of social media has not caused more conflicts in the world. While social media can allow and has allowed protesters to join together in a more organized manner, these types of protests would occur regardless of the use of social media. A simple look at the United States in the 1960s proves this.
No, the use of social media has not caused more conflicts in the world, because it has had the opposite effect. Social media has allowed people to collaborate and work together on things in the world. Social media has helped coordinate relief efforts. Many people can participate in sharing the human experience across boundaries.