Social or Anti-social?!

One of the criticisms of the explosion of the Internet in general, and social networking sites in particular, is that it has actually made people less social. Critics see the rise of social networking as an antithesis to actually going out and meeting people. They say that this is true, especially among the younger lot - teens, and pre-teens. Well, I don't know if that's true, but then that is what they said during the boom time of television as well! Critics of the so-called 'idiot-box' said that kids are glued to television instead of being up-and-about in the playgrounds. Perhaps some of the criticsm may be justified, but one thing that struck me about social media is that it is gradually evolving into something much bigger (and better) than just social 'networking'. A case in point is the ongoing dispute about the elections in Iran. A lot of people are using Twitter to get their point across. They're blogging about their opinions, experiences. They're using Facebook to 'connect and share with people' from across the world. Google Translate recently added Persian (Farsi) to English translation support so that there could be a better interaction between Iranians and the rest of the world. But perhaps the greatest proof - if ever one was needed - of the effectiveness - and power - of the social media is the fact that Friendfeed was banned by the Iranian government (Iran is actually amongst the highest activity regions on the social network). When we read about the Indian freedom struggle, we read about how the Imperial British government banned newspapers, and magazines started by the stalwarts of the freedom struggle to rouse people against foreign rule. Well, here is history repeating itself! Just that the newspapers have been replaced with social media - and networking. But the important difference is that back then (the days of the Raj in India), a few intellectuals started the newspapers to rouse the masses. Today it is the masses who are stirring protests, shaping public opinion, and being infinite citizen journalists. Twitter (and Facebook, and blogosphere) has put the power of the 'Pen' in the hands of the common man in a true sense. And who says that 'viral campaigns' are only for marketing?! The power of the 'viral' was felt even during the American Presidential campaign, where (then) Democratic Presidential nominee Obama used Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere to get in touch with a younger America. So is Twitter the Times (or the CNN, according to TechCrunch) of the Internet age? Well, in this age of 'crowdsourcing' everything, that's not a bad idea, is it?