argumentative essay on technology does more harm than good

Sample details

• Words: 1116
• Views: 3,848

Related Topics

• Moon Landing
• Cloud Computing
• Mobile technology
• World Wide Web
• Artificial Intelligence
• Development
• Mobile Phone
• Interpersonal Communication
• Engineering
• Information Technology
• Impact of Technology
• Virtual Reality
• Programming

Technology Has Done More Good Than Harm Argumentative Essay

Technology has improved our lives in matters of convenience, but has not improved the human condition overall. Our behavior hasn’t changed for the better over the past few centuries. Technology causes our lives to be busier — involved in more mundane activities with more mundane objects. Television is a great technology that has compromised our attention span and our interactivity with other people. It also infiltrates our home with nonstop promotional advertising. I disagree. I have all the information of the internet available to me instantly from my home. I have google to sort it for me.

This is not a convenience, this is an unbelievable resource. Information is power. Throughout history the ruling class kept strict reigns on information in order to keep the masses in check. Without information, who really makes the decisions? With unlimited information, it is truly I who decide what to think. This by itself is proof of the benefits of technology. Speaking from the point of view of an individual, this is the greatest time to live to date. Advertising itself lends the illusion that we should be in constant pursuit of contests in an attempt to win something that we didn’t earn.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

It, like lotteries, gives us false hope that we might get lucky, and causes many people to focus on such frivolities. Advertising is a reflection upon the common person, not the controlling force of them. If people were different then advertising would be different. The string is there, you just have it wrong about which end was pulling which. Telephones have made it easier to contact people, but also made it easier to be contacted, thus invading our privacy. While we can choose to go without services like a telephone, we generally cannot rightly do so and function properly within a basic community setting.

Again, this is information flow. It brings a community closer together. In days of old, those on the other side of town were strangers because you only saw them at church. Now you can call or email them. I am friends with you and you are a thousand plus miles away. Technology is good. Advanced modes of travel have made it easier to go long distances in a short time. But is there really an innate need for us to take so many trips to far-off places? Did people of the 1700s have such a need? Perhaps with the new technologies, we have created accompanying needs, which would mean that technology is also more demanding.

Families are moving farther apart, which creates a niche for greater travel. If we just stayed closer together, we could accomplish the same thing and eliminate the middle man. You presuppose that this travel is for travel’s sake alone and that there is no other reason. People move and travel for a great number of reasons. Most of them are reasonable and positive. I cannot see your logic here. Technology is a mechanism for achieving something that might not have been necessary or even beneficial, but since it was not previously possible is therefore assumed to be progression.

There are side effects to every adaptation. So what? Language, by itself, has had a number of unforseen consequences. Should we abandon language as well? Your facts are not in dispute. Your reasoning does not make sense. If you are saying that we as a community are not making the necessary adjustments to accomodate the new technilogocal lifestyle, then fine. But, that is not a problem with technology. That is a problem with us. Technology is represented by city life, while life before our current technology is represented by country life. Which people are happier?

Are the city folk better off because they have more gadgets? What do these gadgets do for them that country folk don’t already have? Do things faster, farther, with less effort? Are we turning into nothing more than very efficient machines? And are we always expecting more of them, never satisfied with the status quo? Sorry to dissappoint you there young fella, but the technology of farming is exactly what allows for city life to exist. That is the backbone of social technology. As far as people being happy, we are not simply products of our environments.

We are people. We can transcend environment with knowledge. Where and how we live is irrelevant. I am in the second least populated state and was raised in the least populated county in that state. I now live in the city. I can assure you that the country living and the city living are not as great a difference as you might imagine. Sure, on a physical level, technology is great. But on a socio-emotional level, it takes away about as much as it gives. It causes us to depend less and less on ourselves, and shifts the focus to form and away from substance.

All the “white noise” created by technology makes it harder to think clearly. Despite technological advances, we’re still desperately hanging on to our pastoral origins. A lawn and trees, bushes, flowers, etc. , are more than embellishments — they are often requirements to maintain sanity. We don’t cling to bits of the past for sentimental reasons so much as we do to keep some semblance of the simple in order to survive in the midst of the utterly complex. I like this. But let’s take this a step further.

It is our interdependence that will eventually bring us to the next level. Technology is the glue that binds us together as a community. ODN is a community. There is more opportunity for community than ever before. What would a smart guy (let’s say like you) in a rural community do with his mind even fifty years ago? Now, you can talk to PerVirtuous a thousand plus miles away and have access to another smart guy from a rural area. The ability to form communities using technology is only beginning. This will be the ultimate social change. This will redefine everything.

One positive social aspect of technology is that increased communications has deeprooted systems of government that are not for the people, and given the people more of a voice, so they have become less oppressed. No comment. When I retire, I’d like to “get away from the things of man,” as they say in Joe Versus the Volcano. And I don’t mean a trip to an exotic location, but a permanent vacation where there are no tourists. Somewhere in Colorado or Montana would suit just fine. Overall, that is a multi-layered question. We’ve got a few acres here for someone like you. It is exotic, though. So think about it first. Then C’mon up.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/technology-has-done-more-good-than-harm/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Nanotechnology
• Classical Conditioning

Check more samples on your topics

Homework: more harm than good argumentative essay.

Homework: Does It Do More Harm than good? What does the word “homework” mean to you? To some kids when they hear that word they despise it. Everyone has tried to explain to students how important homework is. Homework is defined as an out of class task assigned to students to help them practice and prepare

Fast Food Restaurants Do More Harm Than Good Argumentative Essay

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Today’s motion is fast food restaurants do more harm than good. As a definition, fast food restaurants mean restaurants that sell fast food, which can be prepared and served quickly by using preheated or precooked ingredients. The clash of today’s debate is whether the harm brought by fast food restaurants

Harm of the Improper Disposal of Waste

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, improper waste disposal means that hazardous materials enter the environment and require removal, clean-up or neutralization according to federal, state or local law. This happens when people dispose of waste materials at unauthorized dumps and random locations. 1.Environmental Impact oThe improper disposal of waste impacts the environment

Stalin did more harm than good to Russia

Joseph Stalin

The role of Joseph Stalin in the history of post-revolutionary Russia is remarkable as well as the history of the USSR itself. Stalin is associated with great purges, repressions, victory over the bloodiest regime in the WWII, mass deportations and the executions. Stalin’s name is also associated with the huge industrial raise of the USSR

Informative Speech Outline – Harm Reduction

Informative Speech

Introduction opening device - Alcohol, cocaine, meth, heroin... Most likely, when you hear about these substances, you immediately reject them. However, for some people, these substances are their life and sanity.Thesis - Harm reduction is a comprehensive approach to substance abuse treatment that seeks to reduce the adverse effects of drug use while placing less

If Child or Young Person Alleges Harm or Abuse

If a kid or immature individual alleges injury or maltreatment in our scene we would follow the undermentioned counsel. policies and processs: Listen to the kid and take whatever he/she is stating earnestly as the kid will merely unwrap such information to person they feel they can swear. Offer support without judging or knocking anything

Harm of Creatine to the Health of Athletes

According to Poortmans and Francaux (2000), there has been an increase in the use of oral creatine monohydrate among professional and amateur athletes. Creatine is a substance that athletes and bodybuilders use to improve the production of Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP), which gives them the energy needed for performance. This study aims to investigate the impact

HARM: A Strategic Function for Maximizing Employee Performance

Human Resource Management

Human Resources

Another school of thought explains HARM more explicitly as an organizational function that aims to maximize employee performance in relation to the employer's strategic objectives. Human resource management aims to ensure the organization's ability to achieve success through people. The world is rapidly changing where human resource is organized and prepared to deal with the

Why Would Anyone Physically Harm a Child?

Child Abuse

Child abuse is the intentional and willful harm done to a child, which can include actions such as hitting, beating with an object, slamming against a wall, or even killing. This form of abuse involves actively and aggressively mistreating the child. What's important about this definition is that the harm inflicted on the child is

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Write A Debate On The Topic Technology Has Done More Good Than Harm

Introduction.

In our rapidly evolving world, technology has become an integral part of our daily lives, transforming the way we communicate, work, and navigate the world around us. It has brought about immense advancements and conveniences that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. However, with every innovation comes a set of challenges and potential drawbacks. The debate surrounding whether technology has done more good than harm remains a contentious one, with compelling arguments on both sides of the spectrum.

On one hand, proponents argue that technology has revolutionized various aspects of society, enabling unprecedented levels of connectivity, access to information, and improvements in fields such as healthcare and education. They emphasize the positive impact technology has had on our lives, asserting that it has paved the way for progress, efficiency, and economic growth.

On the other hand, skeptics highlight the negative consequences associated with the widespread adoption of technology. Concerns over privacy, mental health implications, job displacement, and the erosion of genuine human connections have given rise to a growing sense of unease. These individuals question whether the benefits of technology truly outweigh the potential harms and call for a more critical examination of its impact.

As we delve deeper into this complex discourse, it becomes evident that technology’s effects are not easily categorized as solely good or bad. It is a nuanced and multifaceted topic that necessitates a comprehensive analysis of its implications for individuals, societies, and the world at large. By examining the arguments put forth by both sides, we can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by technology in our quest for progress and well-being.

In this article, we will explore the arguments presented by proponents and skeptics alike, weighing the scales of good and harm. By examining the positive contributions technology has made in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education, as well as considering the potential negative consequences related to privacy, mental health, and employment, we aim to shed light on the complex relationship between technology and its impact on society. Ultimately, the goal is to foster informed discussions and guide our collective decisions as we navigate the ever-evolving landscape of technology in the 21st century.

Moderator: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to tonight’s debate on the topic “ Technology Has Done More Good Than Harm . ” We have two distinguished teams with us tonight: Team Affirmative, supporting the motion, and Team Negative, opposing it. Each team will present their arguments, followed by a rebuttal. Let’s begin with Team Affirmative. You have the floor.

Team Affirmative:

Speaker 1: Thank you, moderator. Ladies and gentlemen, technology has undeniably done more good than harm to our society. It has revolutionized various aspects of our lives, bringing immense benefits. First and foremost, technology has significantly improved communication. The advent of the internet, social media, and mobile devices has connected people across the globe, fostering collaboration, understanding, and cultural exchange.

Speaker 2: Moreover, technology has revolutionized education. Access to information has become more accessible than ever before. Online courses and educational platforms have provided opportunities for lifelong learning and educational advancement. Technology has democratized education, bridging the gap between the privileged and the underprivileged.

Speaker 3: Furthermore, technology has transformed healthcare. Medical advancements, such as imaging technologies, robotics, and telemedicine, have revolutionized diagnosis and treatment methods, saving countless lives. Remote patient monitoring and health tracking devices have empowered individuals to take charge of their well-being.

Speaker 4: Lastly, technology has propelled economic growth and created job opportunities. From small businesses to multinational corporations, technology has enhanced productivity, streamlined processes, and facilitated innovation. It has led to the development of new industries, generating employment and fostering economic prosperity.

Moderator: Thank you, Team Affirmative, for your opening remarks. Now, we will hear from Team Negative. Please present your arguments against the motion.

Team Negative :

Speaker 1: Thank you, moderator. Ladies and gentlemen, while technology has undoubtedly brought numerous benefits, it has also introduced its fair share of challenges. First and foremost, technology has led to increased sedentary lifestyles, contributing to the rise of obesity and other health issues. People spend more time sitting in front of screens, neglecting physical activity and social interactions.

Speaker 2: Additionally, technology has fueled privacy concerns. The constant collection and analysis of personal data by technology companies have raised questions about the protection of individual privacy. Cybersecurity threats, data breaches, and the misuse of personal information are significant challenges we face in the digital age.

Speaker 3: Furthermore, technology has disrupted industries and led to job displacement. Automation and artificial intelligence have replaced human workers in various sectors, leading to unemployment and economic inequality. The rapid pace of technological advancements often leaves certain individuals and communities struggling to adapt and find new employment opportunities.

Speaker 4: Lastly, technology addiction and overreliance on digital devices have resulted in social isolation and mental health issues. The excessive use of social media platforms, online gaming, and virtual reality has led to addiction and an unhealthy detachment from the real world. The negative impact on mental health cannot be overlooked.

Moderator: Thank you, Team Negative, for presenting your counterarguments. We will now move on to the rebuttal phase. Team Affirmative, you may respond to the points raised by Team Negative.

Speaker 1: Thank you, moderator. While we acknowledge the challenges raised by Team Negative, it’s crucial to note that technology is not inherently harmful. Many of the issues mentioned can be addressed through education, awareness, and responsible use of technology. The benefits of technology far outweigh the negatives.

Speaker 2: Regarding privacy concerns, we must work on establishing robust regulations and frameworks to protect individuals’ privacy. It is a matter of balancing innovation and data protection. Technology has the potential enhance privacy as well. Encryption technologies and secure data storage methods can safeguard personal information while allowing for the advantages that technology brings.

Speaker 3: Addressing the issue of job displacement, it’s important to recognize that technology has always led to changes in the job market throughout history. While certain jobs may become obsolete, new industries and employment opportunities emerge. It is crucial to invest in reskilling and upskilling programs to ensure a smooth transition for those affected by technological advancements.

Speaker 4: As for the concern about technology addiction and social isolation, it is essential to promote digital literacy and healthy technology usage habits. Encouraging a balance between online and offline activities, fostering real-life connections, and emphasizing the importance of mental well-being can mitigate these issues.

Moderator: Thank you, Team Affirmative, for your rebuttal. Now, Team Negative, you have the opportunity to respond to the arguments put forth by Team Affirmative.

Team Negative:

Speaker 1: Thank you, moderator. While Team Affirmative presents valid points, it is crucial to recognize that the negative impacts of technology are not easily mitigated. The pervasive nature of technology makes it challenging to regulate and control its effects. The harms caused by technology cannot simply be outweighed by its benefits.

Speaker 2: Despite efforts to educate and raise awareness, technology addiction and its associated consequences continue to rise. The allure of social media, online gaming, and virtual worlds poses a significant challenge to mental health and social interactions, leading to profound negative effects that cannot be ignored.

Speaker 3: Additionally, while reskilling and upskilling programs are essential, the reality is that not everyone can adapt to the rapidly changing job market. The displacement caused by automation and AI disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, leading to economic disparities and social unrest.

Speaker 4: Furthermore, the issue of privacy remains a significant concern. While regulations can be put in place, the constant evolution of technology often outpaces legislation. Stricter regulations may limit innovation and impede progress, making it difficult to strike the right balance.

Moderator: Thank you, Team Negative, for your response. We have heard both teams present their arguments and counterarguments. Now, let’s move on to the closing statements. Each team will have one minute to summarize their position. Team Affirmative, you may begin.

Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, technology has been a powerful force for progress, improving communication, healthcare, education, and economic growth. While challenges exist, they can be addressed through responsible use, education, and the development of regulations that strike a balance between innovation and protection. The positive impact of technology on society far outweighs the negatives, making it a force for good that propels us forward.

Moderator: Thank you, Team Affirmative. Now, Team Negative, your closing statement.

Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, while technology has undoubtedly brought benefits , we must acknowledge its negative consequences. The harms caused by technology addiction, privacy concerns, job displacement, and social isolation cannot be dismissed. We must prioritize the well-being of individuals and society as a whole, considering the long-term impact of technology on our lives. It is vital to approach technology with caution and address its negative effects to ensure a balanced and sustainable future.

Moderator: Thank you to both teams for your thoughtful arguments. The debate on whether technology has done more good than harm is complex and multifaceted. It is up to each individual to weigh the advantages and disadvantages based on their experiences and perspectives.

Related Posts

Leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us?

Everyone’s worried about smartphones. Headlines like “ Have smartphones destroyed a generation? ” and “ Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain ” paint a bleak picture of our smartphone addiction and its long-term consequences. This isn’t a new lament—public opinion at the advent of the newspaper worried that people would forego the stimulating pleasures of early-morning conversation in favor of reading the daily .

Is the story of technology really that bad? Certainly there’s some reason to worry. Smartphone use has been linked to serious issues, such as dwindling attention spans , crippling depression , and even increased incidence of brain cancer . Ultimately, though, the same concern comes up again and again: Smartphones can’t be good for us, because they’re replacing the real human connection of the good old days.

Everyone’s heard how today’s teens just sit together in a room, texting, instead of actually talking to each other. But could those teenagers actually be getting something meaningful and real out of all that texting?

The science of connection

A quick glance at the research on technology-mediated interaction reveals an ambivalent literature. Some studies show that time spent socializing online can decrease loneliness , increase well-being , and help the socially anxious learn how to connect to others. Other studies suggest that time spent socializing online can cause loneliness , decrease well-being , and foster a crippling dependence on technology-mediated interaction to the point that users prefer it to face-to-face conversation.

It’s tempting to say that some of these studies must be right and others wrong, but the body of evidence on both sides is a little too robust to be swept under the rug. Instead, the impact of social technology is more complicated. Sometimes, superficially similar behaviors have fundamentally different consequences. Sometimes online socialization is good for you, sometimes it’s bad, and the devil is entirely in the details.

This isn’t a novel proposition; after all, conflicting results started appearing within the first few studies into the internet’s social implications, back in the 1990s. Many people have suggested that to understand the consequences of online socialization, we need to dig deeper into situational factors and circumstances. But what we still have to do is move beyond recognition of the problem to provide an answer: When, how, and why are some online interactions great, while others are dangerous?

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework

As a scientist of close relationships, I can’t help but see online interactions differently from thinkers in other fields. People build relationships by demonstrating their understanding of each other’s needs and perspectives, a cyclical process that brings them closer together. If I tell you my secrets, and you respond supportively, I’m much more likely to confide in you again—and you, in turn, are much more likely to confide in me.

This means that every time two people talk to each other, an opportunity for relationship growth is unfolding. Many times, that opportunity isn’t taken; we aren’t about to have an in-depth conversation with the barista who asks for our order. But connection is always theoretically possible, and that’s true whether we’re interacting online or face-to-face.

Close relationships are the bread and butter of happiness—and even health. Being socially isolated is a stronger predictor of mortality than is smoking multiple cigarettes a day . If we want to understand the role technology plays in our well-being, we need to start with the role it plays in our relationships.

And it turns out that the kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships. Spending your time online by scheduling interactions with people you see day in and day out seems to pay dividends in increased social integration . Using the internet to compensate for being lonely just makes you lonelier; using the internet to actively seek out connection has the opposite effect .

“The kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships”

On the other hand, technology-mediated interactions that don’t really address our close relationships don’t seem to do us any good—and might, in fact, do us harm. Passively scrolling through your Facebook feed without interacting with people has been linked to decreased well-being and increased depression post-Facebook use.

That kind of passive usage is a good example of “ social snacking .” Like eating junk food, social snacking can temporarily satisfy you, but it’s lacking in nutritional content. Looking at your friends’ posts without ever responding might make you feel more connected to them, but it doesn’t build intimacy.

Passive engagement has a second downside, as well: social comparison . When we compare our messy lived experiences to others’ curated self-presentations, we are likely to suffer from lowered self-esteem , happiness, and well-being. This effect is only exacerbated when we consume people’s digital lives without interacting with them, making it all too easy to miss the less photogenic moments of their lives.

Moving forward

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework doesn’t explain everything that might influence our well-being after spending time on social media. The internet poses plenty of other dangers—for two examples, the sense of wasting time or emotional contagion from negative news. However, a focus on meaningful social interaction can help explain decades of contradictory findings. And even if the framework itself is challenged by future work, its central concept is bound to be upheld: We have to study the details of how people are spending their time online if we want to understand its likely effects.

In the meantime, this framework has some practical implications for those worried about their own online time. If you make sure you’re using social media for genuinely social purposes, with conscious thought about how it can improve your life and your relationships, you’ll be far more likely to enjoy your digital existence.

This article was originally published on the Behavioral Scientist . Read the original article .

About the Author

Jenna Clark

Jenna Clark, Ph.D. , is a senior behavioral researcher at Duke University's Center for Advanced Hindsight, where she works to help people make healthy decisions in spite of themselves. She's also interested in how technology contributes to our well-being through its effect on our close personal relationships.

You May Also Enjoy

Five Ways to Build Caring Community on Social Media

How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation

Are Smartphones Bad for Teen Mental Health?

How to Stop Your Smartphone From Hurting Your Health

Does Technology Cut Us Off from Other People?

How to Keep Your Smartphone from Hurting Your Relationships

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Technology pros and cons: is technology good or bad for society?

Find out what are the main the pros and cons of technology. We discuss the history, importance and role of technology, as well as its impact on society. Is technological progress good or is it becoming a threat to us? Vote in our poll and debate (see below)

Is technology good for society? A brief history

The impact of technology on society is undeniable. Technology and science have played a central role in human history and help shape entire civilizations. Technological progress was key for the emergence and downfall of empires. The development of hunting and farming tools allowed our ancestors to dominate other hominid species. The invention of the wheel and writing, as well as the introduction of metal tools and weapons were other landmarks in the history of technology . Many successive civilizations have contributed to the world's advancement. Often the development of technology also helped these societies to dominate militarily , politically, and economically their neighbors, as well as increase the welfare of their citizens.

The Egyptians invented many farming, medical and construction technologies. The Mesopotamians are credited for introducing irrigation and drainage systems, as well as sophisticated mud-brick and stone architecture techniques. Greeks were responsible for many inventions, such as the watermill, and the improvement on many existing technologies. Still today Greek mathematicians, engeneers and philosophers are recognised as fundamental to the history of human thought and technology. The Romans brought technology to a new level, and their monumental amphitheatres, aqueducts, bridges, harbours, dams and public baths help them dominate the Western world for centuries. Ancient Indian civilizations are credited for developing good understanding of seafaring, sanitation and hydrological technologies.  Chinese discoveries include paper, matches, the cross-bow, seismological detectors, the wheelbarrow, the suspension bridge and the compass, among others. 

During the Middle Ages architecture, navigation, papermaking and military technologies were developed. The Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula helped to introduce Europe to many technological advances developed in the east. The Renaissance and the Age of Explorations also demonstrated how innovation shaped societies. Research and inventions were put into practice. The use of artillery, new cranes and medical techniques marked a beginning of a scientific revolution. The Portuguese and Spanish discoveries, were enabled by technological progress but also help connecting different civilization which accelerated the spread of innovation. The industrial revolution brought the steam engine and developments in mining, metalurgy, manufacturing and transport. Since the 19th century, science and technology have evolved even faster. The 20th century brought the expansion of electrification and communication technologies, mass industrial production, electronic computing, nuclear technology and space exploration among others. It also demonstrated the devastating power of some of the technologies developed by humans. The weapons developed during that century, including the weapons of mass destruction, caused the deaths of millions.

The 21st century seems to have accelerated even faster these processes and intensified the impact of technology on society. Technology colleges such as MIT and Stanford have help accelerate scientific discovery. Genetic engineering, nanotechnology, 3D printing, wireless powered devices, augmented reality, articifical intelligence, drones , quantum computers and superconductivity are among the many new technologies we are witnessing today. But what come next? Can technology continue to help our lives or is it becoming a real threat to us? Can we keep scientific progress under control or will technology control our lives? Let's discuss the advantages and disadvantages or technology.

Pros and cons of technology

Pros of technological progress

• Thanks to technological progress humans live longer and much more comfortable lives. The medical advancements have helped us develop vaccines and treatment for diseases which were previously lethal. Giving birth is not as dangerous as it used to be. Technological progress has allowed develop new techniques for diagnosis and mitigation of diseases and other conditions. Scientific research has improved our understanding of nutrition and contributed to healthier lifestyles. 
• Technology has allowed humans to travel faster and trade goods all over the world. Crossing the Atlantic was historically an adventure that would take weeks. Now in just a few hours you can travel from New York to London or Paris . Thanks to technology we can have holidays in remote locations and capture these moments through pictures. We can now buy and consume goods produced far away. In the same supermarket you can find French cheeses, South African wines, Spanish olive oils, Brazilian coffees, and Japanese fish. 
• Without technology we would still be nomads hunting and gathering fruits and vegetables.  Industrial societies heavily rely on technological progress. We can feed a fast growing world population thanks to the continuous innovation in production techniques. New inventions help foster the production, storage, treatment and transportation of goods. Societies which invest in research and development have a competitive edge and thrive. The people in technologically advanced societies live more comfortable lives. 
• Genetically modified foods  (GMO) may help fight hunger and ensure that world population continues to be fed. Genetic modification techniques contribute to produce more food and to maintain agricultural production at affordable prices. 
• The Internet, computers and mobile phones illustrate the role of technology in improving society. Efficiency has skyrocketed thanks to these inventions. Our work and social lives have been transformed. People can now work from home and collaborate with teams located in other towns, countries or even continents. We can keep a fluid communication and relationship with friends and family living abroad. News of events cross the globe in seconds. Social netwoks such as facebook and twitter are extremely useful. Thanks to technology grandparents get to see and chat with their grandchildren much more often. People today get to meet others sharing similar hobbies or interests.
• Thanks to new technologies, alternative forms of entertainment and art have developed during the last century. Photography, radio, movies, television shows, music and video games occupy a central spot in people's lives. There are new forms of entertainment at our doorstep, such as virtual reality . Additionally, IT is facilitating the work of creators and help increase the quality of entertainment.
• The importance of technology in the delopment of renewable energies  is evident. Without technological progress it would be difficult to envisage a green future in which the problem of climate change could be kept under control. Scientific advancements are making electric cars more affordable and enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of solar and eolic energy, as well as that hydropower .

Cons and risks of technology

• Technology is altering our lifestyle and will alter the cognitive and social development of current and future generations. There are many different ways in which the evolution of technology and society are connected. Technological innovation has changed our lives. Computers , smartphones and the internet have strongly affected how we interact with other people. Many claim that they are dehumanizing our lives and making us more solitary people. Technology may be also facilitating cultural colonialism and reducing diversity. Today, children play less with other children and spend much of their time watching videos in their tablets and playing video games. People are doing less physical exercise than their ancestors. We are becoming increasingly detached from nature and attached to technological gadgets. 
• Human cloning technology is a reality and in addition to some obvious advantages, human cloning brings some risks. For instance it could create worrisome divides in society between those genetically divided to be smarter or physically more attractive and the rest. Human cloning will be difficult to regulate and will bring concerns regarding its interference with nature and religious beliefs. 
• Weaponization of viruses . For instance, viruses such as Ebola or AIDS could be transformed into a virus that could be transmitted through the air. This could endanger or even cause the extinction of the the human race . Lifeforms can be created through genetic manipulation. With techonological progress the techniques to create or manipulate lifeforms will be increasingly accessible to us. Potentially even high school children will be able to create life in science experiments. Genomes of infectious diseases will be available to download from the internet. Terrorists, psychopaths and other criminals will have the capacity to use genetic manipulation to harm or threaten others. 
• Similarly, scientific experimentation might create enormous dangers for society. Risky experiments may go wrong . Researchers are currently mutating microorganism in order to find cures to diseases. By accident these diseases could escape the laboratory and spread. Experiments with particle accelerators, such as the Large Hadron Collider , entail some serious risks. Some scientists even claimed that humans could create a black hole that could destroy Earth. 
• Enrichment of uranium is becoming an increasingly cheaper process. Traditionally the infrastructure required to produce nuclear power  and build nuclear bombs was extremely expensive. Thanks to technological progress and the use of laser beams to separate U-235 and U-238, in the not so distant future, people might be able to enrich uranium home. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong organizations or individuals could create enormous unrest in the world population and a serious security threat. 
• Technological progress is to be blamed for the negative effects of global warming and climate change . The role of technology fostering economic progress is difficult to deny. However, at the same time the generation of enegy necessary to the increased production and transportation of goods, for instance through combustion engines and thermoelectric generators, has produced an increased in the emission and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
• Technology can be also used as an undesirable tool of control . For instance, scientists are working to develop brain scanning machines which could allow read a person's thoughts. This would have great benefits as could allow people with disabilities or people having suffered brain damage to communicate. Moreover if through a magnetic resoncance we could enquire criminals and terrorist we could also prevent harm for society. Similarly, thanks to advanced IT, it is possible to analyse the communications of millions of people and identify potential crimes and wrongdoers. Unfortunately, there is a very real possibility that technology will end up used by some governments in a draconian way. A dystopian future where people are constantly inquisitorially surveilled by a Big Brother as in Orwell's science fiction classic 1984.

What do you think, is technology good or bad? Is technological progress out of control? Will the rest of the 21st century see the importance of technology reduced?

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

• In the News
• Editor’s Picks

Upcoming Debates

• Environment

Upcoming debates

• Become a Member
• Does the Effective… Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that encourages people to ask themselves how they can  most  benefit others and do good through an evidence-based approach to charity. Over the last decade, it has influenced billionaires such as Bill Gates, Dustin Moskovitz, and MacKenzie Scott and resulted in millions of dollars given to “high-impact charities” annually. However, after  philosophical critiques  and the downfall of one  of effective altruism’s most visible advocates, Sam Bankman-Fried, some thought leaders are questioning whether EA is the best philanthropic model.  Those  championing effective altruism praise its methodological framework for ensuring charitable donations and efforts do the most good, based on rigorous analysis and evidence, which is practical and ethically obligatory for achieving the greatest positive impact while considering the needs of all individuals equally . Those  challenging  effective altruism argue that its focus on quantifiable impacts can neglect hard-to-quantify important causes, such as human rights, social justice, and cultural preservation, which could lead to a narrow understanding of what constitutes a beneficial outcome.     Now, before opening our wallets, we debate the question: Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right? Wednesday, July 10, 2024
• Board of Trustees
• Advisory Council
• Partners/Sponsors
• Our Friends
• Get Involved
• Where to find us
• NPR Station Support
• Join Our Team

SUPPORT OPEN-MINDED DEBATE

Help us bring debate to communities and classrooms across the nation.

• Menu Header
• Sign Up Log In
• My Dashboard
• Economics, Finance
• Energy, Environment
• Briefing Room
• View Schedule
• NPR Radio List
• Memberships
• Partner Support
• The Intelligence Council
• Robert Rosenkranz, Chairman

Will Artificial Intelligence Do More Harm Than Good?

ARGUING YES

Daron Acemoglu

Darrell West

• In The News

Is it true that artificial intelligence will do more harm than good? Proponents say it will help us solve problems like climate change and world hunger while eliminating dangerous and mundane jobs. But critics warn that A.I.’s current trajectory is a dangerous one, which will likely concentrate power, reduce jobs, surveil consumers and voters alike, and threaten democracy. What’s more, some people say these conditions are not based on science fiction but are already in the process of afflicting us, given the number of algorithms we engage with on a daily basis. So, could artificial intelligence be used to help solve some of the world’s most pressing challenges and level the playing field, or will it present perils that far outweigh any good it might do?

Related Resources (4 RESOURCES)

The ai we should fear is already here, daron acemoglu: robotics, a.i., and the future of work, why we need to think of ai as a platform, the promises and risks of artificial intelligence: a conversation with daron acemoglu.

How will artificial intelligence shape our future? My long-read Q&A with Darrell M. West

Darrell m. west – the future of work: robots, ai, and automation, the future of work, how artificial intelligence is transforming the world.

Background (2 RESOURCES)

John Donvan

Hi everybody, I’m John Donvan, and welcome to Agree to Disagree from Intelligence Squared. And about that telephone in your pocket. Well, I, actually, let me use much more up-to-date term the smartphone in your pocket. And yes, it is smart in the sense that it really does have a certain kind of functional intelligence going on behind that little screen. Artificial Intelligence, AI. And thanks to AI, your phone is not some static, you know, lump of silicon, it is actually adapting to you all the time. It is studying you and it is learning from you to the point where it, it’s actually now advising you on routes and restaurants, and it’s reordering your photos by subject matter and whose faces are in them. And it’s lining up news stories for you to read.

And in so many ways that I expect you appreciate your phone and its artificial intelligence, they are helping you and your relationship with all of that, because let’s face it, it is a relationship between us and AI. Is it good and healthy and problem solving, or does it become worrisome that the AI has so much info on you and is practically speaking, deciding things for you, and that AI itself is just moving so fast into so many parts of life, way, way past the phone in your pocket and into the, the infrastructure of everything? And also that you don’t really know who’s behind it all and where it’s all headed.

So that, yes, you’re experiencing some of the benefits of AI right now already, but you may also be wondering in the longer run, will artificial intelligence do more harm than good? Well, that is exactly what we are asking in this episode, word for word. That question is one that later in the program we’re gonna actually put to an AI engine and see what answer it comes up with. But first, we have two humans who are gonna debate from opposing points of view on the question, will artificial intelligence do more harm than good? We’re joined by Daron Acemoglu, an economist at MIT, and Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. Daron and Darrell, thanks so much for joining us on Agree to disagree.

Thank you. Nice to be with you.

To get things started, we have this central question and we just wanna know who’s the yes and who’s the no. So on the question once again, will artificial intelligence do more harm than good? Daron on that question, are you a yes or are you a no?

I am a yes, and I think AI will do more harm than good on its current path because it is being developed in a particular way that deepens social, economic and political inequalities in society.

Thank you very much. And that tells us where you’re gonna be on this question, Darrell, but I wanna do it as a formality. Darrell West on the question, will artificial intelligence do more harm than good? Are you a yes or are you a no?

I am the no, because I think AI can relieve humans of boring, dirty, and dangerous activities. There are gonna be tremendous advantages if we get the policy right. I mean, that’s really the crucial part here.

All right, thank you. So we know who’s yes and who’s no. And I want to go back to, uh, Daron, you took the yes side, which is yes, do more harm. So take a couple of of minutes and tell us why you’re on that side.

So let me sort of first lay the scene by saying, you know, AI is a bunch of new technologies, extensions of existing digital technologies in many different dimensions. And of course, any new technology arrives in the middle of existing conflicts, ex- existing power imbalances between companies, governments, individuals, workers, citizens, users. And if you looked at it at that perspective, you would start thinking about, well, how is it going to influence those existing relationships? And who is going to decide the future path of AI and for whose benefit? So the thing that really worries me is that AI on its current path is in the hands of already powerful companies and governments and, you know, forget about, you know, super intelligence and so on. But artificial intelligence as construed right now is a lot about collecting a lot of data and developing algorithms based on that data.

Now, as the familiar saying goes, knowledge is power, information is power. So who controls data is very much embedded in the existing economic and social power relations of society. And if you give more data to the already very powerful corporations, the already very powerful cogovernment such as the Chinese government, you know, this is going to have an impact on how we are going to divide the gains from new technologies and how we’re going to change the power dynamics in society both economically and socially. And in fact, when you look at the details, what you see is that, you know, AI is sometimes sort of presented as reaching human level intelligence and amazing capabilities.

Sure, perhaps in 200 years time scientist think it could happen, but today it’s really about three major activities. It’s about advertising, online digital ads, it’s about surveillance. You actually watch people, monitor people, learn more about their political views, what they’re doing at work, what they’re doing in their free time, and it’s about automation. And all three of these deepen existing inequalities in society. And unless you take other measures to counterbalance them, all three of them are going to have negative consequences on many people. So you see that with data collection, you see that with surveillance and monitoring. Automation is the more complicated one because it’s a key economic activity that’s been going on for 250 years at least. But I will argue, and we can come back to this later in its current form, this type of automation is also not, not generating benefits for workers in general.

Okay. You’ve given us a lot to start with there, but before we start digging into the points that you’re making, I wanna let, uh, Darrell West tell us why he says no to the idea that it’s doing more harm than good. So it’s your turn now, Darrell.

Thank you. Uh, I guess I am more optimistic about the future of AI because all new technologies almost always create problems for society. You know, when you go back and look at the printing, press, television, automobiles, any new technology, there always are problems either in terms of human safety or lack of understanding about the, uh, technology. And, and certainly we see a lot of that with, uh, AI today. But what always happens is humans have the capability to control the technology through laws, policies, and regulations. That’s been the history of technology innovation, and that will be the future of AI. Now, right now, we have had, for the last several decades a libertarian stance on technology in which we have outsourced all the major decisions to private companies.

And they have an enormous amount of data. They have misused the information. Uh, there’ve been problems of racial bias, a lack of fairness, uh, and certainly inequality has emerged from that. But it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s actually not the fault of the technology, I would argue it’s the fault of our public policy. I think with new laws, a new social contract, more regulations, we can actually adapt AI to human needs and move AI towards the public good in the same way that we did with past, uh, innovations. Like cars were dangerous things, and we came up with safety belts, uh, airbags and other, uh, safety, uh, mechanisms, uh, and we’re able to reduce the fatality rate. Uh, we have problems of AI in terms of fairness, bias, and inequality, but we can alter our tax policies and our social policies to deal with some of those issues and move AI much more towards the public good.

So what, what I’m hearing each of you saying there’s some, a certain amount of common ground in that you’re, you’re both saying there’s AI, uh, that’s doing a certain thing that could be harmful. And Darrell, you’re saying, well, it, it won’t be that harmful if we take measures. And Daron, you are saying it’s already doing harm and it’s gonna continue to, to do harm unless we take measures. But what I think I hear being the difference between the two of you is a little bit of a sense of where we are now in this journey. And Darrell, you’re pretty optimistic that things are moving in the right direction or likely to move in the right direction. And Daron, you sound much less optimistic about the moment we are and the trend lines that you see about how things are unfolding.

So I, I want to talk, you to talk a little bit more about that and what you said in your opening statement, and especially in terms of, of AI being an engine for inequality and, and and, and why not be more optimistic in the way that Darrell is that yeah, there are challenges, but we can address them, we can figure it out. Why not be more optimistic about that?

Well, I think, uh, you’ve nailed the key point of disagreement. There is a lot of agreement between what Darrell and I are saying, but there is one subtle difference, which is that I think Darrell, as several other, many other economists and social scientists, believes that somehow there are automatic mechanisms for humanity to adjust its policies, its norms, its institutions, so that we get the better of the new technologies. Whereas my own read of history, my own read of evidence is that, that sort of adjustment mechanism is much more haphazard and it often requires major political change and it sometimes failed, it sometimes succeeds and you cannot bank on its success. And in fact, I would go further and I would say that the moment we start banking on the success of these adjustment mechanisms, be they policies to redistribute or change the governance of data or companies or automation, I think the moment we take those for granted, we make it much more likely that the current path of AI that is inequality boosting, that is not actually bringing much productivity benefits continuous.

Darrell, your response?

I mean, I do not think there is an automatic mechanism, uh, that is going to correct the abuses of, uh, technology, but I do believe that humans have the capability to make different choices and enact different kinds of policies. And in fact, I think we are actually in the early stages of starting to do that. So as I mentioned before, the last several decades we’ve been libertarian, but there now is a tech-lash that has emerged, a backlash against technology, against the technology companies and against the dominant market power of these, uh, companies. And we are starting to see new laws, new regulations, and new policies designed to deal with particular problems. So for example, uh, take the issue of privacy.

Like I think, uh, both, uh, Daron and I would agree, uh, that, uh, companies have too much data, they can misuse the, uh, data, the threat to privacy is, uh, very real. But the state of California passed a law to impose a lot of new restrictions on technology companies. And California is such a big state that the tech companies can’t really devise AI for California that’s different from Utah or Nevada. So when California cracks down on, uh, privacy abuses or the European Union cracks down on privacy abuses, which, uh, they are, uh, currently doing as well, essentially the tech companies have to come along and essentially devise better AI that really helps everyone.

And so I think that just really illustrates the fact that at the state and local level, we’re already seeing a lot of, uh, action, uh, in moving towards greater, uh, regulation. Uh, there’s more regulation of the gig economy. Uh, there’s more, uh, cities who are starting to regulate Airbnb rentals because I think it’s harmful to their local communities. So this tech-lash is starting to change public opinion into public policy, and I think that’s the source of my optimism.

I’m John Donvan, this is Intelligent Squared US. More when we return. Welcome back to Intelligence Squared US, I’m your host, John Donvan. Let’s return to our discussion.

Daron, Darrell is also saying we’ve been down this road before with technologies. I’m thinking of obviously automobiles and electricity and, and railroads, um, maybe nuclear power, um, but um, that, that we sort of got it figured out, and that’s where the optimism is coming from Darrell. And I wanna know if you think there’s a, a, a difference of, of magnitude or qual- or, or, or kind in the challenges you’re talking about with AI versus, say, the adoption of electricity or the automobile.

Well, to make this less interesting, I think I agree a lot with the, most of what Darrell said. I think his beginning statement for the last round is, is very much my opinion as well. I think the only place where there is some residual disagreement is in Darrell’s account of how we have adjusted to past breakthrough technologies. I would not be as positive about how that adjustment took place. And I would say it was much more painful, it was much more haphazard, and it was much longer. Let me give some examples. You know, before the industrial age, we had the medieval agricultural economy, contrary to what is sometimes implied with labels such as dark ages. The Middle Ages had a lot of new technologies that improved agricultural productivity massively. But if you actually look at what happened is that in most cases, these technologies did not improve the living standards of peasants, farmers, they deepened inequality.

Sometimes they actually reduced the living standards of, uh, uh, of, of the majority of the population. For example, with much better mills, uh, you could improve many parts of the production process, but then the mills were the monopoly of religious authorities or the lords that then compel people to pay exorbitant prices for using the mills and could not, would not even allow them to use their hen mills. So this actually went on for several hundreds of years before sort of you see a systematic change in who has property rights, who controls new technologies, who has rights. And then you come to the industrial age and you see the same thing playing out.

You know, the new technologies that spearheaded the British Industrial Revolution were mostly in the textile industry at first. Those not only just led to much greater inequality, but also lower wages, much longer working days for most textile workers, also to much worse conditions in factories in cities. And this lasted more than a hundred years before things started improving. So there is nothing rapid about it. And if you look at the details, there’s nothing automatic about it now. That’s what worries me.

Well, let, let’s talk a little bit about, you were talking about the impact of technologies, uh, on, on, on the livelihoods and the, the quality of life of individuals hundreds of years ago. I wanna talk a little bit now about the impact of artificial intelligence on the livelihoods, uh, and life, uh, quality and the workplace of, uh, the average American. So Darrell, you said at the outset, um, that, that, um, AI kind of relieves people of certain dreary jobs, which sounds great. Um, how far does that go?

Well, technology can relieve people of, uh, mundane, dirty and dangerous jobs. So, for example, when there’s a nuclear accident, like we used to have to send people in to kind of monitor the radiation, uh, levels, uh, now we routinely send in robots with cameras, uh, with sensors. They can basically collect the same, uh, data without endangering humans. So that’s an example of how technology can actually improve the human life, uh, and, uh, kind of protect people in the process. But I think there also some economic advantages that, uh, people often ignore. So for example, cell phones are becoming ubiquitous and smartphones are becoming, uh, more, uh, common around the world as well, including in developing nations.

Mobile technology has enabled farmers in remote areas of Africa to basically expand their markets. Like in the old days before technology, essentially people who fished, uh, people who farmed in, uh, rural developing, uh, nations, basically were limited to their very local market in order to sell their wares. Today because of mobile technology, they have access to much greater information outside their local city and their local community. They can sell their wares, uh, to a broader, uh, uh, group. And so it’s an example of how technology can better the lives of people. I wouldn’t argue it’s going to, you know, solve the inequality problem because you know, that’s deeper and more, uh, fundamental and there’s a lot more going on there. But technology can be one of the tools that can provide more information to people, expand their markets, and therefore create greater economic opportunities.

So, Darrel, you, you just mentioned that you don’t think technology is solely to blame for inequality. So I want you to talk a little bit about that. Um, w- what, I know it’s very, very difficult to put a percentage on it, so I’m not gonna ask you to do that. But if you can give us an overall sense is, is AI, uh, in, in any way, in the way that Daron is explaining it already an engine for inequality compared to other things that are causing inequality?

It is currently an engine for inequality, but I would argue a bigger source of inequality is our completely inegalitarian tax policies and our very poor social welfare, uh, policies. I mean, there are very large and very rich tech companies that are paying five to 10% on their, uh, corporate tax rates. Like that is ridiculous. That’s completely unfair. That contributes to the inequality. So if we want to deal with inequality, there are tax policy and social welfare policy changes that would mitigate the impact of that. Like, if you look at the experience of America, like the period from like the 1920s through the late ’40s was a period of pretty high, uh, income inequality. But then through public investments and infrastructure, tax policy changes, social welfare policy changes, we developed social security, unemployment compensation, and other things that the period from, let’s say 1945 through the 1970s, America actually got more egalitarian.

But then over the last 40 years, basically since the 1970s, our tax policies moved in a very inegalitarian manner. And so tech, uh, and so inequality, uh, that expanded. But it’s not necessarily the technology that caused that. It’s the fact that we don’t tax these companies. We don’t tax their income or their wealth. We don’t regulate them. Uh, we don’t have, uh, social welfare policies that help people make the adjustment to automation. So the, the inequality does not have to coexist, uh, with, uh, technology. If we pair technology with the proper tax policy and social welfare policies, we can actually bring down inequality.

Well, let me bring that back to Daron then. What, what Darrell is saying is that your argument for inequality might be overstating the impact of inequality in the overall equation of what’s causing inequality.

Well, I think those are complex questions, and there is much, I agree with what Darrell said. I think our tax policies are horrendous. You know, there are institutional reasons for inequality. In the US, social safety net is very weak and inefficiently organized, completely agreed. But if you look at the data, at least the way I have, and you know, of course there are different choices you can make in approaching the data, but my own research here as well as research by others, indicates that automation has been a major source of inequality and stagnant wage growth over the last four decades.

And it’s not so surprising in some sense what automation has done. And this is all pre AI, by the way. And the question is how AI is continuing this trend, and we can talk about that. But what automation has done is that it has enabled companies to use equipment, industrial robots for tasks previously performed by blue collar workers and factories and software, digital tools for tasks previously performed by office workers. And if you look at where inequality comes from, it’s actually driven very largely by the following incomes of workers, demographic groups that used to specialize in those tasks that have been automated over the last several decades. And in fact, that’s exactly what the historical record also shows.

In other episodes, you also see that automation tends to increase inequality, tends to depress wages. This does not invalidate the point that Darrell made. He gave a brilliant example. For example, from the work by the economist Rob Jensen, about how mobile phones have helped, uh, fishermen in, in Kerala in India. But when you look at that, the remarkable thing in that example is exactly that the use of mobile phones to help fishermen is not automation. It’s actually you are augmenting what fisherman used to do. You’re providing them new tools to make better decision, acquire better information, and you’re actually creating new tasks for them.

But, but isn’t that

That’s, that’s the key

… isn’t that actually

… key issue. If I can just say one more sentence.

I think that’s the key issue when it comes to the labor market implications of any new technologies. How much of it is just automation? How much of it is creating new capabilities for workers? And I think the current path of AI building on how we have used digital technologies is going too much in the automation direction.

Why do you think that? T- talk, talk about a couple of industries where you think that’s happening.

Well, I mean, the best example is, uh, manufacturing. You know, if you look at-

Well, let me, let me ask you. I, I think manufacturing is also the easiest example. But, but

… what, what about other kinds of professions that, where people feel they might be sitting comfortably right now, are you saying that they’re also at risk of losing their livelihoods? Not having their work enhanced by a, a souped up tool, but having their work replaced by, um, by an artificial intelligence that can lock, stock and barrel do everything that they were doing for a living before?

Yeah, I think there’s been a lot of, that has already happened before AI. If you look at where automation has been, uh, you know, there’s rapid automation on factory floors, but you know, even, uh, as far back as 1980s, 1970s, you know, a very small fraction of the US workforce was in blue collar jobs. A lot more of the impact of automation has been in office jobs, clerical jobs. And you know, if you look at, uh, in the 1930s, 1920s, 1930s, uh, 1950s, 1960s, you see clerical jobs or blue collar manufacturing jobs, those were the ones that were engines of wage growth in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s. And that’s because there were many organizational and technological choices that were expanding the functions that these workers were performing, creating new tasks for them, new capabilities for them.

And now, fast-forward to the post 1980 era, and you see that a lot of the use of digital technologies is focused on eliminating these workers or eliminating at least a subset of the tasks that they’re performing. And that’s the cracks of the matter about how we use technology creating inequality or actually helping workers.

All right, lemme take that to, to Darrell. And, and Darrell, I’m, I’m sure you say, you’re gonna tell us it doesn’t need to be that way, but also to some degree, I’m sure you’ll, you’ll concede it has been that way. So I’d like to hear how you process your response to that.

Uh, Daron is, uh, completely correct, uh, that there are going to be lost jobs and there have been, uh, lost jobs, uh, due to, uh, technology and automation. I mean, we can clearly see that in retail, in office jobs, in finance, uh, manufacturing, and in other areas. But a few years ago, I wrote a book entitled The Future of Work, and I argued, and John, you’re exactly right, it doesn’t have to be that way. I made the argument that we, in this era of digital transformation, we need to invest in worker retraining, in adult education.

We need to embrace lifelong learning, kind of the old education model where we invest in education up through about age 25, and then people are on their own after that has to give way to new models where basically people re-skill at ages 30, 40, 50 and 60 virtually, uh, throughout, uh, their entire lives. So again, it’s not the technology that is creating the problem, it’s our lack of good tax policies, social welfare policies, education policies, et cetera, et cetera. So we need a new social contract. And if we do those things, I’m actually still very optimistic about the future of AI and technology in general.

So I mentioned at the beginning of the program that we went to an AI engine, uh, called Anthropic, and we actually entered the question that we’re debating here, will artificial intelligence do more harm than good? And it gave us an answer. (laughs), I’m gonna read it. Ai… this is the answer. I’m, I’m now quoting, I will not do the robot voice, but I’m so tempted.

“Um, AI has the potential for both positive and negative impacts. AI can help solve many of the world’s problems and improve lives with applications such as disease diagnosis, increased productivity, and automation of dangerous jobs. However, there are valid concerns around privacy and bias and job displacement. There are also longer term concerns about the existential risks associated with advanced AI, such as the control problem and the misuse of AI by malicious actors. Overall,” now it’s reaching a conclusion, it’s taking sides in this part. “Overall, AI will likely have a net positive impact, but in order to ensure this, we need to be proactive about addressing the risks and continue to develop AI responsibly.” Well, it sounds like

Are you sure Darrell didn’t write this?

Yeah, it sounds (laughs)-

That is exactly my view. I completely agree with that. (laughs).

(laughs). Uh, I, I’m, I’m just curious about your take that we’re actually listening to an AI answer that was constructed in pretty darn good English and made sense. Um, what, how does that, how does that just hitch, hit you, uh, Daron, that, that, that a, a machine made up of wires and lights and flashing silicon can do that? Somebody’s gonna make so much fun of what I, how I just described (laughs) the circuitry

No, I mean, I-

… but go for it.

You know, o- of course, many of the capabilities we are developing are quite impressive. The cameras on our phones are amazing. Uh, the remote work communication technologies are just out of this world. You know, you have much better imaging possibilities, much better ways of data crunching. I think all of those are very real. That’s the reason why I agree with Darrell that we have the means to expand our capabilities. I also tend to think that there is often quite a lot of hype about some of these technologies. You know, if you ask these fancy sort of machine language models questions that can be built on the basis of things that they have access to from the internet, they can give very sophisticated answers.

But if you probe and try to understand whether they actually comprehend what they are saying, even the concepts, I think the, uh, the, the case is very clear that there’s a huge lacuna of, of understanding, and it’s just like parroting things that you sort of get from the web and put together or from their training data and, and put together. So I’m not actually, uh, of the view that we are close to anything like human capabilities in most tasks. But on the other hand, data crunching can get you very far. But the question again comes down to what are you going to use that data crunching for?

D- Darrell, wh- why, why is AI so good with data? What, what advantage does it have over the human brain?

Well, its main advantage is just the tremendous, uh, processing power that it has. And as super computers get even better, that processing power, uh, is going to, uh, improve as well. But I mean, what impressed me about the AI engine answer is AI and machine learning are actually good at summarizing what other people have come up with because it’s basically just a more sophisticated form of content analysis that we’ve had around, uh, for, uh, decades. You know, it can look at the literature, uh, look at books, look at articles, and basically kind of pull out what are the most frequent types of arguments.

That’s completely different from human intelligence. Uh, that’s kind of almost a rote type of thing. I mean, the future AI is going to develop more capabilities to learn, uh, to adapt, uh, and to basically make, uh, more informed decisions, uh, based on data. But I do think the part of the answer that we do need to worry about is the data control part of, uh, that. It is a huge problem, uh, right now, basically because of the dominant market position of the large, uh, technology, uh, platform, uh, companies. And so that’s the part that we need to get a handle on.

I’m John Donvan, this is Intelligent Squared US. More of our conversation when we return. Welcome back to Intelligence Squared Us. Let’s get back to our debate.

So where do you see us being in 20 years on all of these issues? You know, on the whole, again, the, the question is whether we think AI will do more harm than good. So we’re talking about on balance, and it’s obvious now from both of you. We’ve heard about both benefits, uh, real and soon to come, and also risks. But you know, if you look at some of the potential benefits that AI can, can make people healthier, that the, that, uh, disease can be spotted sooner, that potentially, if the dream of, uh, auto, of self-driving cars comes true, that AI can make the roads safer. Those, those are all good things.

On the other hand, what happens to the taxi drivers and what happens to the radiologists and what happens potentially to some of the other m- members of the medical profession? On the whole weighing up the, those sets of benefits and, and, and, and risks Daron, what, where do you, where do you see us going in 20 years, being in 20 years on the trajectory that we’re on right now?

Uh, again, I don’t wanna sound like, I think it’s an open and shut case. I do believe, like Darrell, that we can change course, we can change direction, but I think it’s a more systemic change that is needed. Do I believe that such a systemic change is likely in the current US political environment? Unfortunately, I’m not super optimistic, although I still hope we can do better. I also think that though, there are technologies that are going to be very promising in terms of disease detection and a few other things like protein folding. Some of the promises of AI are exaggerated.

Many of the simplest routine tasks were already automated by using simpler digital tools. We are now entering the field of human judgment. And I don’t think AI is going to make such rapid progress that in 20 years time, we’re gonna see amazing productivity improvements. In fact, one of the remarkable things about the data is that the age of digital technologies has been one of relatively slow productivity growth. And I think it’s going to continue that way unless there is a complete overhaul of how we use these digital tools, which again, I hope is feasible, but I don’t see it as likely.

So, so that’s interesting, Darrell. I think what I’m hearing Daron saying is that in addition to the, the tension with the policy choices that are made, the, to the, uh, establishment of guardrails to keep the harm from outweighing the good, also just the suggestion that the actual wizardry of tech, of, of AI has been over-promised that, uh, the, the potential benefits are gonna take a long, long time to come.

You know, we were talking, I, I know I was on panels in 2016, 2017, where there were predictions that there were gonna be a lot of self-driving cars all over the highways by 2020, and now it’s two years after that, and that hasn’t happened. And so that question of whether the promise is over promised, uh, is, is out there. And I think Daron has just put that out there, and it goes, I think it challenges optimism to a degree.

Uh, there certainly has been a lot of hype, nobody can really, uh, deny that. But, uh, the example on self-driving cars, uh, there was a prediction that by 2020, uh, they would, uh, be present at least in, uh, major, uh, cities. Uh, that has not happened. If you take a 10 to 20 year time horizon, though, I do think self-driving cars will become, uh, much more prevalent. It’ll probably start in the taxi business and the ride-sharing services and in the, uh, trucking, uh, sector before it becomes a mass consumption, uh, type of thing. But it will then disseminate from those areas.

Now, if we actually get to the point where self-driving cars do become more prevalent, right now in America, there are about 44,000 highway fatalities every year. 90% of them are accidents involving drunk driving or distracted driving. Like human error is the big source of these 44,000 fatalities. Now, autonomous vehicles are gonna have their own problems. Uh, privacy actually is gonna be a huge problem because autonomous vehicles collect an enormous amount of data, but autonomous vehicles are not gonna get drunk, and they’re not gonna get distracted. If we had a lot of autonomous vehicles on the road, we would not have 44,000 fatalities. Now, it would not be zero. Uh, it would be somewhere in between, but there would, uh, but our highways would be much, uh, safer due to the technology.

All right, so that’s a good, that’s, that’s a pretty optimistic prediction for 20 years from now. I, I wanted to mention before, when we were talking about taking that question to, uh, the question of our debate to the artificial intelligence, um, at Anthropic, that we actually did a debate ourselves in 2019. I moderated a debate, uh, under the aegis of Intelligence Squared between a human being and IBM’s technology called Project Debater. And we filled a hall, hundreds of people watched, um, a piece of technology in about 15 minutes, put together, uh, an argument on a question about providing, um, uh, preschool for children as I, as I recall.

And a human was given 15 minutes to prepare his argument. And then the two of them debated for about 20 minutes and went back and forth and back and forth with the, uh, the technology speaking and a voice that I would identify as female, um, making very cogent arguments, even making some jokes that were programmed into it. And in the end, the audience voted and decided that the human had been more persuasive, uh, which may show certain human bias, but it, it was, it was not an overwhelming vote. Um, the, the, the, the computer did pretty well. And I, I’m bringing that up, first of all, to recommend it’s worth going and listening to on our selection of, uh, of, uh, podcasts, but, in radio programs.

But I’m bringing it up also because we at Intelligence Squared to think of debate as being so, so, so central to democracy, to the functioning of democracy, to the expression of ideas, to the challenging of ideas to free expression, period. And I know Daron, that one of your big concerns about the negative impacts, as you would put it, of AI as we have, are experiencing it already, is that it is corrosive to democracy. And now that we’ve put democracy into the conversation, I really want to ask you to take on that, that point of view and explain where you think AI is, is being damaging to the very fabric of our democracy. Now and potentially.

Well, thank you, John. I’m wondering when that was gonna come up.

Here, here it is.

Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I think, uh, you know, we need to take a step back. There is, as Darrell said, always a danger that new technologies are going to disrupt existing methods of communication, discourse, equilibrium in social affairs. And you see that with online communication in general before AI. But I think the most pernicious effects of AI on democracy are linked, again, consistent with Darrell’s emphasis to the business model of tech companies, which is based on digital advertisements trying to monetize data and information about people who are taking part in that communication. And it has led to an environment in which you have many problematic aspects for democratic discourse.

Democratic discourse requires that people have trust in the quality of the information that they receive, that they hear opposing voices, they can have incentives and means for reaching compromise. They can have small group interactions, which acts as a school for self-governance and democratic participation. And I think the current business model centered on digital advertisement undermines all of these. It’s not just the echo chambers. That’s one aspect of it. It’s not just the extremism sort of getting a lot of mileage, but the whole, uh, sort of erosion of civic communication and participation that is coming together with this business model and the tools that are amplifying this, this business model that’s a problem.

Where are those tools functioning? Gi- give us just a few examples of where the algorithms are doing that.

I think the, you see that both on sort of, uh, bilateral communication platforms such as, you know, uh, Facebook where you are sort of directly sending messages to, uh, a group of followers versus platforms such as YouTube, where you are sort of broadcasting messages. In both cases, if you look at the business model, it’s based on trying to maximize engagement. And, uh, the reason for that is very clear, if people are engaged, that they’re gonna be more receptive to digital advertisement, which is the source of the, the most major source of revenue, overwhelming source of revenue for these companies.

And in both cases, you see that that acts as a way of undermining any type of reliable communication. It amplifies extremism and more sensationalist content, uh, in, in the YouTube case that is going to to be videos with more sensational material or bigger claims, or sort of more extremist content, in Facebook cases gonna be related to the way the feed is presented and amplified and boosted. And in both cases, the evidence is building up that this has come with a variety of anti-democratic consequences.

And, and are you saying that the AI is figuring out, you know, obviously what you’re saying is that these, um, algorithms are trying to push our buttons. And is the AI figuring out even better ways to push our buttons because it has access to all of this data than any, than any human would?

Absolutely, absolutely. You know, I think, you know, advertisements again, are as old as, you know, marketing and industrial production. But if you look at how the ad business worked before it’s a broadcast, it was a broadcast model. So you weren’t targeting the ads to a specific individual and, and you weren’t using detailed information about how that individual’s attention is going to be the drone, how his or her buttons are gonna be pressed, how you can maximize that individual’s enragement, emotional reactions so that they end up spending more time. All of these again, are not, you know, this is not like super intelligence or anything like that. It’s really simple algorithms, but with enough data about how individuals react to various different types of cues, you can do that quite successfully.

The sort of Cambridge Analytica is just one little example of that. If you look at the algorithms involved in Cambridge Analytica, they’re pretty mundane.

D- Darrell, um, what’s your response on this? I, I, again, I suspect you’re gonna say there’s a lot of truth to this.

Well, I’m not gonna defend the AI of social media companies because clearly we have an extremely toxic information ecosystem. Uh, Daron is completely, uh, right about the way social media fuels polarization, extremism, radicalization, and sometimes even outright, uh, violence. So that clearly is problematic. Uh, I actually have a new, uh, Brookings book out entitled Power Politics, that does look at threats to democracy. The threats that I worry about beyond technology are voter suppression, rigged institutions, gerrymandering, and this archaic institution called the Electoral College, which basically has allowed republicans to lose the presidential popular vote most, uh, of the time in the last 30 years, but actually win the electoral college, uh, 40% of, uh, the time and therefore dominate policymaking. So I make that point just to, uh, make the broader argument that we need to avoid tech determinism. There clearly are a lot of problems in our society, but they’re not technology.

Can you define that term?

Yeah. Uh, what I mean by that is there clearly are many problems, uh, in our society, but there not necessarily based on the technology, you know, inequality I think is based on tax policy and social welfare policy. The threats to democracy, although technology is making the social media, uh, atmosphere, uh, much more toxic, they’re much more fundamental threats there in terms of state legislatures passing rules that are basically making it more difficult to vote. How our political institutions are rigged against majority public opinion, uh, gerrymandering is skewing the results of house elections and state legislative elections. So the, the problem with tech determinism is it actually makes people feel powerless. Because if we’re blaming the technology, then the lesson that people draw from that is the technology is so powerful, we can’t do anything about it. And in all of my writing, I always try and make the argument that humans are not powerless. We are actually powerful, we can control the technology.

But if I could add just one thing, I mean, I think, uh, the argument that I try to articulate is not tech determinism. I emphasize specifically that this is a function of the business models that are prevailing. So absolutely, I don’t think there is anything deterministic about tech. But there is one aspect that I would like to reiterate. Unless you change the business model, which is very, very difficult, and it’s again, part of that systemic change that I loosely referred to before, you are not going to be able to avoid those lopsided effects of data concentration, data control, and monetization of that data that takes place online in social media and other platforms. So I think it’s not tech determinism, but it is a set of pernicious effects from the current use of tech based on a specific set of business practices.

Darrell, you mentioned a few minutes ago, we are powerful and, and, and, and we can control this technology. Which just throws, throws the door open to the conversation that comes out of science fiction that I’m guessing neither of you (laughs) thinks we should need to take particularly seriously, but I gotta put it out there. That whole, that whole notion of the cyborgs taking over that whole notion, you know, Elon Musk warning about the day will come when the artificial intelligence really achieves consciousness and then achieves, uh, e- egocentrism and then just achieves ambition and then achieves greed and doesn’t, and wants us out of the way. Um, is that just crazy, fun, scary talk? Or is there something real there? And I’d like to ask each of you that question, but go, go to you first, Darrell.

Uh, Elon Musk is just completely wrong on this as he is in many other areas. I am not worried at all about cyborgs, super intelligent robots or AI eventually enslaving, uh, humanity. Uh, the, when you look at AI today, it’s actually not that good. Most AI is what I would call single purpose AI, meaning it can be really, really good at doing one thing like tabulating data or analyzing the content of the scientific, uh, literature, uh, things like that. There actually is not AI that is general purpose AI. Like, it’s hard to have an algorithm that is good at like 10 different things or 100 different things the way human beings are.

And so the fear that they’re gonna be these super intelligent bodies that are like good at a bunch of different things, maybe in 500 years we’ll need to worry about that. But today what I worry about is fairness, racial bias, lack of transparency, impact on human safety, inequality, privacy. I do not worry, uh, at all about cyborgs or super intelligent robots taking over.

(laughs). And what about you, Daron?

Well, 1- 100%, 200%, 300% agreed with Darrell. Darrell’s completely, right. There is no feasible path along the current trajectory to anything even remotely looking like super intelligence. But I would actually add, I would amplify that point. I actually believe that all this talk of super intelligence is actually misleading us and taking, making us take off our guard against the more relevant problems with AI, in two ways. And I’m not saying this is a conspiracy. I’m not, this is not, nobody’s conspiracy. I hate conspiracy theories. It’s just something that has evolved in the context of the current tech industry, current tech barons, uh, way of thinking about it.

Well, I’m glad, I’m glad I asked that question. I was a little bit hesitant because I thought you had both, uh, laugh it out of the park, but you both took it seriously and actually brought some insight to it as, as you did, um, throughout this whole conversation. Um, I, I, I, it was very interesting to hear how much you agreed, um, but you had that essential disagreement on optimism about the moment that we’re in and where it’s leading us to in the world of, uh, artificial intelligence becoming further integrated into our lives and into the infrastructure of everything we do.

But I really wanna say that I appreciated how you listened to each other and showed respect for each other, because that’s what we aim for in Intelligence Squared. So, uh, Daron Acemoglu and Darrell West, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you, John. Thank you, Darrell. This was really fun and, uh, I’ve learned a lot. Thank you.

Yep. Agreed.

And the conversation that you’ve just heard perfectly captures why we do this. Y- you know, that the way the discourse is happening across the land these days is pretty broken, and it’s why it’s so unusual, but also so refreshing to hear two people who disagree actually be able to converse rationally and civilly and to shed light, not just blow smoke. And we know from so many of you that that’s exactly why you tune into us. And it’s why I’d like to remind you that as you turn to us for all of that, we turn to you for support. We are a nonprofit and it’s contributions from listeners like you who keep us going. So please consider sending us a buck or two, or 10 or 50. Go to our website, iq2us.org, whatever works, whatever you can do, and it’ll give you a stake in what we’re doing here each week. And it will mean that we’ll be here each week and next week and beyond. So thanks. Please consider it.

And I’m John Donvan. We’ll see you next time. Thank you for tuning into this episode of Intelligence Squared, made possible by a generous grant from the Laura and Gary Lauder Venture Philanthropy Fund as a nonprofit. Our work to combat extreme polarization through civil and respectful debate is generously funded by listeners like you, the Rosenkranz Foundation and Friends of Intelligence Squared. Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Clea Conner is CEO, David Ariosto is head of editorial, Julia Melfi, Shay O’Mara and Marlette Sandoval are our producers. Damon Whitmore is our radio producer, and I’m your host, John Donvan. We’ll see you next time.

Related News (2 RESOURCES)

 Is the Truth really out there? Debates. You remember them. When both sides presented facts to support your chosen position. While the debate has disappeared from much of our daily…

Is the Truth really out there?   Debates. You remember them. When both sides presented facts to support their chosen position. While debate has disappeared from much of our daily…

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

You must be LOGGED IN or be a member to comment. BECOME A MEMBER to Join the Conversation.

Have an idea for a debate or have a question for the Open to Debate Team?

RECOMMENDED

Will chatgpt do more harm than good, agree to disagree: sex with robots, artificial intelligence: the risks could outweigh the rewards.

Explore All

Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?

Debate community, educational briefs, be curious. be open-minded. be open to debate..

FIND OPEN TO DEBATE ON YOUR LOCAL NPR STATION

A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Open to Debate, formerly known as Intelligence Squared U.S. addresses a fundamental problem in America: the extreme polarization of our nation and our politics. Our mission is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to American public discourse.

• Suggest a Topic
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Media & Press
• Careers / Internships

Expert moderation. Good-faith arguments. Reasoned analysis.

Sign up for weekly new releases, and exclusive access to live debates, VIP events, and Open to Debate’s 2024 election series.

• Stay Connected!

Foundations For Career Fulfillment.

• Privacy Policy

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS DONE MORE HARM THAN GOOD – A CONTRARY OPINION

Teens’ blog.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGGY HAS DONE MORE HARM THAN GOOD – A CONTRARY OPINION (An argumentative essay by Gold Lawrence)

Gone were the days when man would have to communicate through talking drum, bush burning, and so on or travel a long distance in other to deliver a message through animals. Science has made it easier to send information by providing electronics such as cell phones, computers and so on.

Back in the days, our forefathers would have to make use of crude tools like cutlass, hoe and rake to cultivate, harvest, and do other farming activities because there was no intervention of science. But now science has made it easy by providing machines such as tractors, plougher, planters, harvester and so on. So we don’t have to stress ourselves with the crude tools but use mechanized tools.

Although, some schools of thought has it that trains, airplanes and other means of transportation have disadvantages. But don’t they help us transport goods from one place to another? Don’t they make our lives easier and better? Yes, they do. Science and technology has helped in providing planes, cars, trains for easy transportation, not of goods only but also people. Gone were the days, when farmers would have to trek a long distance just to sell their products and during the process some get attacked by wild animals or some of their goods perish on the way which depleted their profit. Many didn’t even survive due to hunger and thirst, but science and technology came and changed all that.

In addition, science and technology has helped in terms of health by providing vaccines for diseases and illness. Gone were the days, when we gave ourselves self medication and used excessive herbs which sometimes led to death due to our ignorance. But then science helped by providing diagnostic machines and other pharmaceuticals vaccines or drugs to help us live longer and healthier.

Furthermore, science and technology helps in business activities such as advertising by making a brand/product known to the public through magazines, radios, televisions, billboards and so on.

Science and technology has helped in improving our standard of living. Back in the days, our fore fathers would have to make use of fire torches and lanterns to see, using grinding stone to blend their sauces, use clay pots and plates or leaves to eat. On the contrary, science and technology has provided electricity, blenders and other home appliances to make life easy.

So my dear readers, I hope I have been able to change your mind from the misleading motion. The truth that should be embraced by all, is that science and technology has done more good than harm.

PRACTICAL GUIDE

Now selling @.

Enquiries: +234 8186645015 | +234 8063594962

Greatness starts from knowing what to do and doing it!

Explore Now

Other Topics

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHEMISTRY TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Why Most Children Want to become a Doctor

The UN is Silent While We’re being Killed: on Genocide in Nigeria

The Step-by-Step Process for 2018 JAMB UTME

From Footballer to President – a Piece of George Weah’s Secret

Nigerian Skips with One Leg Behind Ear to Break Guinness World Record

Where Cultures Clash: Between Respect, Worship and Disaster.

Are You Ready for This – Mobile App for Adolescent Sexuality Education by UNESCO?

Amazing! Who Says They Are Disabled?

NID Programs and Innovative Enterprise Institutions Nigeria

JAMB: The ABC of Admission Cut-off Mark

Why People Don’t Cross from Other Fields to Science but the Other Way Round?

As We Take a Bow from Secondary School, Farewell

Stop Thinking and Act on This!

Understanding the Power of Response as a Pathway to Maturity

Abducted Boys Regain Freedom on Day 65

How the Curriculum Controversy Was Half-Resolved

Understanding True Love and Determining If You Are Ready for It As a Teenager

If I Become a Medical Doctor in the Future, Where Will My President Go for Treatment?

Between Leaders and Followers, Where Should Change Begin From?

Tuition-Free Online Courses and Resources for Learning & Development

What to Teach Your Children about Money

Become a Pilot with This Information

The Chibok Girls’ Dilemma

Three Lessons From Lionel Messi’s Parents and Community

14-4-14, A Day of Horror in Chibok Nigeria

Malala Yousafzai: Youngest Hero With Most Prestigious Honour

Go As Far As You Can Imagine, Blog It!

Meningitis Outbreak in Nigeria: What You Need to Know

CSE: An Unacceptable Dimension of Sex Education

How to Deal With Bullying

Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives

UNESCO’s 2017 GEM Report Youth Photo Contest

The Well-Digger Series by Tokunbo Emmanuel

All It Takes to Raise A Successful Child (Part Two)

All It Takes to Raise A Successful Child (Part One)

Importance Of Family Education (Part Three)

Importance Of Family Education (Part Two)

Importance Of Family Education (Part One)

Understanding The Forces At Work In Zion (Part Two)

Understanding The Forces At Work In Zion (Part One)

What I Would Do Differently: 7 Costly Mistake To Avoid In Your Journey Of Life – By Sam Adeyemi

Scoring Life’s Goals: The Story and Success Tips of Larry Izamoje

Teenage Heartbreak – How to Protect Yourself

3 Keys to Overcome Shyness.

Menstrual Hygiene Management and Girls School Absenteeism

We Have Seen What Would Destroy Nigeria!

How to Type Naira Symbol in Plain Text and in HTML Code

Black Friday Explained in a Nutshell!

How You are Involved in Partisan Parenthood

Days When No One Dies

Curbing the Menace of Substance Abuse Among Youths: the Roles of Parents, Schools, and the Society.

How to Appreciate Your Teacher on October 5 – World Teachers’ Day

The Digital Workforce Conference – Event You Must Attend!

Innovative Options to University Education in Nigeria

JAMB: Here is What Determines Admission into Your Choice Institution, Not the Cut-off Mark

Why Money Miracle Stories by Preachers Don’t Work for Their Followers

Complete List of Banned Anti-Malaria Drugs

Internet Radio for Kids, Now in Africa

Education in the 21st Century, What’s Up With Africa?

FGN Misfires Again- Music and Video for Nigeria Must Be Made in Nigeria

We Are the Leaders of Tomorrow, What is Wrong with this Statement?

The New Curriculum Controversy: Unveiling the Third Perspective and Opportunity to Spread Christianity

A Book You Must Read: Practical Guide to Choosing the Right Career Path.

How Many Mother’s Day Do We Celebrate in a Year? A Concise Answer.

How to Help Your Child Say NO to Molestation

US Mission’s Teaching Excellence and Achievement Program (TEA) for Nigerian Teachers

How to Deepen Relationship with Your Teenage Child

The Right School Versus The Best School!

Cultivating Your Child’s Intellect

How To Manage Your Leader

Three Lessons From Bill Gates’ Parents

Three Lessons From Mark Zuckerberg’s Parents

Balanced-Love-Diet For Your Child

How To Build A Winning Self Esteem (Part Two)

Sex Education Demystified (Part Three)

Sex Education Demystified (Part Two)

Sex Education Demystified (Part One)

Fisher of Men Or Fisher of Fishes – Which Makes More Economic Sense?

How To Build A Winning Self Esteem (Part One)

Christian Court in Nigeria – Diverse Perspectives!

What to Do When School Doesn’t Make Sense.

High Fees Charged By Churches’ Schools – Why You Should Pay?

You Have a Brain – A Teen’s Guide to T.H.I.N.K. B.I.G.

Why Not Accept The Bread?

Feeling Unloved Or Hopeless?

How to Handle Academic Failure, In 7 Steps (Part Two)

How to Handle Academic Failure, In 7 Steps (Part One)

Go to the Blog Page

16 comments on “SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS DONE MORE HARM THAN GOOD – A CONTRARY OPINION”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notice: It seems you have Javascript disabled in your Browser. In order to submit a comment to this post, please write this code along with your comment: 0fcd57634314d5de752b1c4aa46be3c2

Argumentative Essay Writing

Argumentative Essay About Technology

Strategies for Writing a Winning Argumentative Essay about Technology

12 min read

Published on: Mar 3, 2023

Last updated on: Jul 23, 2024

People also read

Argumentative Essay - A Complete Writing Guide

Learn How to Write an Argumentative Essay Outline

Best Argumentative Essay Examples for Your Help

Basic Types of Argument and How to Use Them?

Take Your Pick – 200+ Argumentative Essay Topics

Essential Tips and Examples for Writing an Engaging Argumentative Essay about Abortion

Crafting a Winning Argumentative Essay on Social Media

Craft a Winning Argumentative Essay about Mental Health

Crafting an Unbeatable Argumentative Essay About Gun Control

Win the Debate - Writing An Effective Argumentative Essay About Sports

Make Your Case: A Guide to Writing an Argumentative Essay on Climate Change

Ready, Set, Argue: Craft a Convincing Argumentative Essay About Wearing Mask

Crafting a Powerful Argumentative Essay about Global Warming: A Step-by-Step Guide

Share this article

Are you struggling to craft a compelling argumentative essay on a technology-related topic?

Looking for tips and techniques that will help you make the grade? If so, this blog post is for you!

 In it, we’ll cover the basics of constructing an effective argumentative essay about any type of technology. 

You'll discover strategies to build a strong thesis statement, support your ideas with facts, defend them against counterarguments, and write the paper. 

So whether it's artificial intelligence or robotics that interests you – let’s get started crafting your powerful argumentative essay!

On This Page On This Page -->

All About an Argumentative Essay

An argumentative essay is a type of writing that employs logic and evidence to prove an assertion about a topic.

It involves formulating your opinion on a topic and then defending your position through the use of facts, and other persuasive techniques. 

In other words, you are trying to convince the reader of your point of view

Argumentative essays are often assigned in school and college courses, so it's important to understand how to write them effectively.

Purpose of Writing an Argumentative Essay About Technology

When writing an argumentative essay about technology, it's important to consider the purpose of your essay.

What are you trying to prove or disprove? Are you discussing the impact of a particular type of technology on society, or attempting to explain how a certain piece of tech works? 

Understanding the goal of your paper will help you stay focused and make sure your argument is persuasive.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

How to Write an Argumentative Essay About Technology 

Writing an argumentative essay about technology can be one of the most interesting assignments you will ever have in school. 

In this blog, we will provide you with step-by-step instructions on how to write an argumentative essay about technology. 

Do Your Research

The first step in writing an argumentative essay is to conduct research.

Research provides insight into both sides of the issue and helps you form your own opinion on the topic. 

Look for credible sources such as books, journals, newspapers, websites, and interviews with experts in the field to get information about technology. 

Make sure you are thorough in your research so that all sides of the issue are addressed. 

Pick a Suitable Title

After conducting your research, it’s time to pick a title for your essay.

Your title should be catchy yet straightforward– it should capture the reader’s attention while also accurately depicting what the essay is about. 

Brainstorm ideas for titles by looking at other topics related to technology.

 You can do so by considering potential arguments you could make in favor or against certain technologies.  

 Form an Outline

Once you have picked a title for your essay, it’s time to start outlining your thoughts and ideas into an organized structure. 

Begin by listing out your main points; these should be centered around whatever argument you are making about technology. 

From there, create sub-points under each main point that support or supplement it further. 

This will help keep things organized as you write your essay so that it flows logically from beginning to end.  

Check out this amazing blog on argumentative essay outline to craft perfect outlines.

Write an Introduction For Your Essay

After creating an outline for your essay, it’s time to begin writing with an introduction paragraph. 

The introduction should set up the main points of your argument and increase the reader’s interest in learning more about them. 

Start off with some background information on technology before transitioning into why this specific topic is important and relevant today. 

This part should grab readers’ attention right away so they want to continue reading through the rest of the paper! 

Write Body Paragraphs

Now comes arguably the most important part of any good argumentative essay – body paragraphs! 

Each body paragraph should contain one main point followed by supporting evidence that backs up this point.

Write an Engaging Conclusion

The conclusion is the last part of your essay and should be used to wrap up all of your main points. 

Start off summarizing the argument you have made throughout the body paragraphs by restating your thesis statement and its importance. 

You could also bring in potential implications for this topic or areas for further exploration/research.

Finally, end the paragraph with a strong statement that leaves an impression on readers and wraps your essay up nicely.  

By following these simple steps, you can easily craft an effective argumentative technology essay!  

Expert Examples Of Argumentative Essays About Technology 

In today’s world, technology has become an integral part of our lives. It is hard to imagine a day without the use of electronic devices and gadgets.

But, although technology can be incredibly helpful and beneficial in many ways, it can also have some serious drawbacks. 

That is why argumentative essays about technology offer us a great opportunity to explore the implications of technology in our lives.

CollegeEssay.org has some examples of argumentative essays about technology that you can use as a guide while writing your own essay. 

Argumentative Essay About Technology And Social Media

Argumentative Essay About Technology In Education

Argumentative Essay About Technology A Friend Or A Foe

Argumentative Essay About Technology Make Us Alone

Is Technology Good Or Bad Argumentative Essay

Check our extensive blog on argumentative essay examples to ace your next essay!

All About Writing a Research-Based Argumentative Essay About Technology

When writing a research-based argumentative essay about technology, it is important to consider the various ways in which technology has impacted our world. 

When writing a research-based argumentative essay about technology, it is important to take a balanced approach. 

You should consider both the positive and negative effects of technology before forming your opinion on the issue.

It is also important to back up your claims with data, research, and facts. 

Here are a few steps that you need to follow in order to write a research-based argumentative essay on technology.

Writing a Research-Based Argumentative Essay About Technology Pre-Writing Phase 

The pre-writing phase is the most important part of any essay-writing process. 

You need to take some time to brainstorm, research and gather information about your topic before you begin writing. 

Think about what arguments or points you want to make and write them down, as well as potential sources for evidence and support.

Brainstorm Ideas and Options

When you are ready to start writing your research-based argumentative essay about technology, begin by brainstorming ideas and opinions. 

Think about any advantages or disadvantages of technology that you want to explore in your essay.

Consider both the positive and negative aspects of technology and try to come up with persuasive arguments for each side.

Research Arguments

Once you have a clear idea of the arguments and points you want to make, it is time to delve into your research. 

Look for reliable sources that support your claims and provide evidence for them. 

Be sure to cite any sources used in the essay so that your readers can verify their accuracy.  

Pick a Catchy Title

Pick a title that captures the main points of your essay and gives the reader an indication of what it is about. 

The title should be short and to the point, but still creative enough to grab the reader’s attention. 

Form an Outline

Organize your ideas and arguments into an outline. This will make the process of writing much smoother and ensure that you stay on track with your points. 

Your essay should have an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Writing A Research-Based Argumentative Essay About Technology Drafting

The drafting phase is when you begin to put your ideas and arguments into words. 

Be sure to include evidence, facts, and quotes from reliable sources in order to support your claims. 

As you write, remember to keep a consistent tone throughout the essay so that it flows well. 

When finished with the draft, go back and edit for accuracy, clarity, and grammar. 

Write an Introduction 

The introduction of your essay should provide an overview of the topic and set the tone for what you are going to discuss. 

Also, introduce any key terms or concepts that will be used throughout the essay and briefly explain them. 

The body of your essay should contain the main arguments and points that you want to make. Each point should have its own paragraph and be backed up with evidence, facts, and quotes from reliable sources. 

Be sure to clearly explain each argument in an organized manner so that the reader can easily understand it.  

Write a Conclusion

The conclusion of your essay should summarize the main points that you made in the body paragraphs and leave the reader with a strong impression. 

You can also include any final thoughts or recommendations on the issue at hand.

Proofreading & Editing

The last step in writing your research-based argumentative essay about technology is to proofread and edit it. 

This is essential as it ensures that all mistakes are corrected and the essay reads smoothly and clearly. 

Read through the essay thoroughly, paying close attention to grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling errors.  

You may also want to have someone else read your essay and provide feedback. This is a great way to catch any mistakes that you may have missed. 

Once you have finished proofreading and editing your essay, it is ready for submission. 

Example of a Research-Based Argumentative Essay About Technology

Here is an example of a research-based argumentative essay about technology

Good Argumentative Essay About Technology Topics

Here is a list of good argumentative essay topics about technology

• Are Social Media Platforms Doing Enough to Protect Users’ Privacy? 
• Should Smartphones Be Banned in Schools? 
• Should Companies Be Allowed to Monitor Employees’ Online Activity? 
• Does Technology Make Us More Productive? 
• Do Video Games Have a Positive  Impact on Society? 
• Is Technological Progress Making Us Lonelier? 
• Are Smart Homes a Good Idea? 
• Should We Regulate the Use of Artificial Intelligence? 
• Do We Rely Too Much on Technology? 
• Does Technology Make Life Easier or More Complicated? 
• Should We Use Technology to Monitor the Safety of Our Children?

Check our comprehensive blog on argumentative essay topics to get more topic ideas!

You’ve now learned the basics of how to write an argumentative essay about technology.

By utilizing these tips, examples, and methodologies, you should be well on your way to writing a winning essay. 

Of course, if you find that you need a little extra help, our AI essay generator can assist you. 

With years of experience crafting standout essays for students just like you, our argumentative essay writing service will help you get the grade you deserve.

Contact our argumentative essay writer today to learn more about how our essay writing service online can help you write an outstanding essay!

Cathy A. (Medical school essay, Life Sciences)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

Internet Brings More Harm Than Good

Has the arrival of the internet done more harm than good?

All the Yes points:

The internet has become a major source of information for many people. however, online information …, everyone’s privacy is greatly harmed by the internet. we can quickly see what politicians and celeb…, you can choose any identity you want when you are online. many people hide behind profiles they hav…, many people are just addicted to the internet. they can’t stop browsing, they are hooked on gaming …, since the nineties, instant messaging and emailing has been used to extract passwords, bank account …, the internet has allowed big companies to capture a lot of business online while smaller, local comp…, all the no points:, yes because….

The internet has become a major source of information for many people. However, online information has usually not gone through the same checks as newspaper articles or books. There is a higher risk that some of the facts or quotations from a particular source in an article are false. Whereas newspapers might lose customers if people find out they gave been ‘selling lies’, a blog can be easily deleted. If people base their opinions on information they find online, they could well be basing their opinion on false facts. Since the internet gives equal space to material of greatly varying quality, this is a serious risk.

No because…

The internet gives millions of people access to information they would not otherwise have had, which is a huge benefit. And people who read the news online are not that easy to fool. Especially when you spend a lot of time online, you can tell bloggers who just want to shout from bloggers who carefully refer to their sources. The type of people this argument worries about are not the type of people that read high quality newspapers in the first place, they would read the trashy ones. The problem of bad information and news making is not unique to the internet; there are lots of trashy magazines as well. We learn in schools to double-check our sources and not believe everything we read, and we can apply that skill whilst surfing the internet.

Everyone’s privacy is greatly harmed by the internet. We can quickly see what politicians and celebrities are doing when the paparazzi posts news pictures online, but people can also see what we’ve been doing. Some sites store information. Some ask us to fill in information which can be sold to other sites for commercial purposes. Once we post something online, it is almost impossible to erase it from the net. For example, if I break up with a person, they can take revenge and post embarrassing photos of me online. There have been numerous court cases where a woman demanded that her ex remove some privately taken photos from a dating site, so that she would be left alone. Unfortunately, the law cannot protect your right to privacy in this area.

You are the first and most important person to protect your own privacy. Don’t fill in private information, if you don’t want people to know about it. There are laws protecting you from websites that just sell on your information, but if you give personal information out without being sure that it will be properly used you only have yourself to blame.

You can choose any identity you want when you are online. Many people hide behind profiles they have made up. They start making nasty remarks on public forums or chat rooms. They would never have normally said these things, but because they can hide behind an identity they start upsetting and hurting others. Even though other people can try to stop them from this behaviour, their warnings are not as effective as a warning from someone you know very well, like a friend, a parent or a teacher. The internet’s anonymity allows them to show sides of themselves that, for good reasons, they normally wouldn’t have shown. This increases the risk that, because they get away with it online, they show similar behaviour in their real life. This harms everyone.

Against this group of people who misbehave online is a group of people who have finally found individuals with similar mindsets. Not everyone likes the same things and the more unusual your preferences, the harder it will be to find friends. The internet has finally given many people a place where they can be themselves, and where they can meet likeminded people. It is a great relief for them that they do not have to fear being discovered by people they know. You cannot let a small group of badly behaved people ruin the freedom of many others. We should work on creating better policies to deal with rude people, but we should not go back to the old situation where people who are different in some way end up feeling isolated and lonely.

Many people are just addicted to the internet. They can’t stop browsing, they are hooked on gaming and they spend too much time indoors. Instead of going out for a walk or play outside, they sit behind their computers for hours. A sad consequence of the addiction is that they are so used to high speed information by just clicking on the next link that they can no longer appreciate a good book, or a nice conversation with a friend. By failing to take exercise they grow fat and unhealthy. Their family life suffers and their only relationships are online – they can’t cope in the real world.

There is nothing wrong with sitting indoors. It’s better to sit indoors and actively research and surf online than to sit in front of a television and passively take in what the TV company decided you should watch. 20 years ago people used to worry kids spent too much time inside watching TV, but viewing hours have dropped as people choose to use the internet instead. There are lots of educational games and news sites we can browse around and learn from in much more effective way than television could ever provide. Furthermore, many people keep up their social contacts online. Saying they cannot appreciate a nice conversation, or a good book is just a wild claim.

Since the nineties, instant messaging and emailing has been used to extract passwords, bank account details or credit card numbers. This phenomenon is called phishing. A phisher uses professional-looking websites and profiles, and tens of thousands of people have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars to phishers. If we could better control who contacts us, this would not have happened on such a large scale.

It is unfortunate that people who are willing to help have been abused by others. However, there have been many campaigns that raise awareness about phishing. Governments and banks have provided guidelines about how to recognize phishers. We should firmly deal with the crime of phishing, but not forget how much easier our life has become now that we can do our financial business online and via bank cards.

The internet has allowed big companies to capture a lot of business online while smaller, local companies have lost out. And because the internet makes it easier to get work done abroad, jobs have left many western countries for low-wage countries abroad.

The internet has brought greater prosperity, allowing lots of different businesses to set up online. This has brought a lot more choice to ordinary people, and also driven down prices as people find it easier to compare different companies products. Small businesses can cheaply set up online and find a market for their goods and services. And by making it easier to work anywhere with an internet connection, it has allowed many more people to work from home and to share out projects with co-workers over the whole world.

Hey without the internet you wouldn’t even have this post plus without the internet everyone wouldn’t even know what is going on in the world and the information thingy everyone knows and should have been taught that you do not give random sources your personal information.

Far more harm than the good it provides. Agree with all the comments about how disruptive it is, but I also look at it from an analytical “insider” view. I have been in the tech business for 24 years. The first 10 to 12 were fun and exciting trying to discover new and better ways. However, I and many in the industry began to notice a shift. It grew and continues to grow too fast. Breakthroughs became hypertensous expectations, 8 hour work days became 24 hour workdays, recreation and family time disappeared, automation and access has made us gluttonous, text vs. talk has made us misunderstood and misrepresented, false or malleable information made us blindly biased, etc. etc.

It’s extremely dangerous! Someday soon, our reliance on it will come back to bite us. As we grow more dependent on it and integrate it into our daily lives, it’s vulnerability grows 10 fold. Used as a weapon of influence is scary enough, but I fear someday it will be radically taken over and we’ll all be held hostage or it will be shutdown with no recovery. When it does a global virus pandemic will be the least of our worries although is providing a mild glimpse into what it will be like. No medical or bank info, hospitals and power plants will be immobilized, shortages of everything, the list goes on and on. There’s no realistic expectation of how far we’ll be pushed back as civilized people. There are far more of us than ever before, with fewer skills than ever before to survive it.

But, maybe that’s what is required to rebuild and use it properly by future generations. More importantly to reunite us as family, friend and community and realize it’s value. Failure is the best teacher. This one will be monumental.

As someone who’s been around since before the internet, I can say that it’s brought more harm than good. Human social interactions have worsened in general: anxiety/depression is epidemic, social supports have broken down and stressful isolation has increased, courteousness has almost disappeared, people are too wired up to pay attention to each other and their environment, tech addiction is real and debilitating, people have lost useful skills and resilience, online discussions are predominantly toxic, a great many are falling for nonsense and conspiracy theories, youth are too easily and quickly radicalized (hate crimes, mass shootings, and terrorism are epidemic and normalized), fascism has spread worldwide, its helped elect many more dangerous populists like Trump/Bolsonaro/Duterte, its increased global energy use / resource extraction / species extinctions and worsened the likelihood of civilization surviving manmade climate change, etc.

Like any new technology, the internet has brought its own series of disasters; and like all technologies, it must be much more regulated to minimize its harmful impacts and potential to wipe us all out.

Hey, I do think that the internet is like a zebra. Some parts are a danger zone, and some are quite good! I’m doing a debate and I’m affermative for the internet causes more harm then good. Can I have a few pointers. Or rebuts???

Internet compresses time and space. It is widely known that internet has been perhaps the most technologic innovation in the field of communication. As everbody knows we should critically use internet to find information. Despite the general known benefits I find internet as the most dangerous thing. Moreover, we may as well list pages of drawbacks but I list only few of them.Reaching harmful information, cyber bullying, identify theft, armour and heroin using,hacking accounts…These can happen 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.Childeren are being cyberbullied too, their pictures are being used for it.This cruelty is absolutely wrong. In addition more identfy theft also steal key pieces of personally identiable informations. The information can be used to obtain credit, services in the name of victim,or provide the thief with false credentials. In addition to running up debt, in rare cases, an imposter would provide wrong identification to police, creating a criminal record or leaving outstanding arrest warrants for the person whose identy has been stolen.

What does being social actually mean? Well, according to the Macmillan Dictionary, being social is being in in situations and activities that involve being with other people, especially for enjoyment. Social networking sites do more harm than good. The negative effects social networking sites can have on individuals effects them emotionally, physically and mentally. This encompasses cyber bullying, the dangers of paedophilia, illegal activities which children can get involved with and the mental illness issues as a result of social networking sites. Social networking sites are harming society as a whole. I will explain how our ideals of “Social” have changed and how that changing, is harming our society.

Social used to be saying, “Hi, I’m Melanie, Nice to meet you. Want to go out for a cuppa coffee?” Now, our ideals have changed. Now being social is, “Oh look! Some random stranger friended me! I have such a social life.” But do you actually? See according to the definition I said at the beginning, being social is being in situations that involve being with other people. Sure, you can be in a very interesting conversation or situation on social media with other people, but when you’re in that interesting conversation, where are you actually? Are you at home, alone? Are you on the bus? Are you sitting at a restaurant, alone, waiting for your boss, or with your date? How about your friends, where are they? What are they doing? Let’s say you’re on a date. You and your date are sitting, side by side, texting. Maybe you’re texting each other, maybe you’re not. Either way, you’re doing what we nowadays see as social, but in reality, you’re doing the opposite. You’re being unsocial. But because we have changed the ideology around social, we don’t always see it for what it is. So here’s the hard facts, by being “social” to a bunch of random strangers on Instagram or snapchat, you’re ultimately being “unsocial” in the real world. And the real world is where it matters. Digital worlds don’t last, but the choices you make out here, in the real world do. Yes, there is a life outside your cyber walls.

Well said Melanie.

You have to be nieve not to see how different people are now.

Any reasonable person can see this…

Many are now sacrificing values…. sincere, meaningful and (memorable) engagement with family, friends, spouses and children, for distraction. It’s a massive hinderance and problematic to the relationships we have now.

I understand the positives and Im sympathetic for some people who can’t access information easily or meet others in extremely small towns.

Where to find the “middle ground” … I don’t know”

The main issue I have is the “dependency” on the internet and social media.

The Internet bring more good than harm for ordinary citizen, because it allow real speech freedom and knowledge sharing.

The Internet bring more harm than good for government and media authorities, because they are no longer monopolise knowledge and citizen’s voice.

Loss of privacy is big issue for Internet, but for ordinary people, it doesn’t really matter. Privacy is only a big issue for celebrities.

Its obvious that things are not always designed for a wrong purpose …….it depends how u use it .And when it comes to internet , it would be so ungreatful go say that it does more harm (for instance , people who are taking part in this debate are even able to do this via using internet). Its of great use until and unless u add a proverb ‘mis’ to it ( by yourself).

We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!

The Internet has never bring more harm than good. If I may say, the Internet has achieve more then what it was created to for. Now when you count the number of continent we have in the world and you omit the Internet, then content is not complete. Now one can be in his or her apartment and travel through the world with seconds. We can say the Internet is 100% safe or good but due to ignorance, certain group of people have try to paint the internet black. The internet is my second love and it is totally cool. You hook up with persons you will not meet in real life and lot more.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Argumentative Essay Example

Technology Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

344 samples of this type

Regardless of how high you rate your writing skills, it's always an appropriate idea to check out an expertly written Argumentative Essay example, especially when you're dealing with a sophisticated Technology topic. This is precisely the case when WowEssays.com collection of sample Argumentative Essays on Technology will come in handy. Whether you need to think up an original and meaningful Technology Argumentative Essay topic or look into the paper's structure or formatting peculiarities, our samples will provide you with the necessary material.

Another activity area of our write my paper website is providing practical writing support to students working on Technology Argumentative Essays. Research help, editing, proofreading, formatting, plagiarism check, or even crafting completely unique model Technology papers upon your request – we can do that all! Place an order and buy a research paper now.

Good Argumentative Essay About Google

Introduction, good argumentative essay on patent medical procedures.

Now that technological progress has made it possible to apply medical innovations for saving human lives, there has appeared a measure of dissonance between the advocates and the adversaries of patents. Patenting means a person is granted a monopolistic or exclusive right to scientific achievement, which is purchasable for a certain financial reward that recoups the disclosure. However, patents imply zero availability of medical procedures to both patients and doctors, which places human lives in jeopardy. The point is that there is a need to protect intellectual property and the need for medical technologies to serve ethical purposes of saving human lives.

Is It Ethical to Patent Medical Procedures

Free video games argumentative essay example.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Free Impact of Giving Children Below the Age of Five Years Full Access to Technology Argumentative Essay Sample

Imagination as a human development argumentative essays examples, clasing of civilizations argumentative essays example, does technology make us more alone essay, is technology making us more alone, good argumentative essay on how to stop illegal immigration, sample argumentative essay on does technology make us alone, thesis statement, free youtube as a medium for self-expression argumentative essay example, free human beings two-legged social animals argumentative essay sample, good argumentative essay about technological determinism, technological optimism and technological pessimism, good example of how the human element of war has changed since world war i argumentative essay, good the myth of singularity argumentative essay example, free argumentative essay on privacy in todays technological age, free give a kantian vs utilitarian argument for creating/for not creating conscious robots argumentative essay example, argumentative essay on technology, sample argumentative essay on order # #211376366, online courses argumentative essay samples, free argumentative essay about technology in the classroom: using digital game based learning as an educational, free argumentative essay on technology and children, free couse argumentative essay sample, anthropology, good example of technology argumentative essay, technological advancements and the human brain: can we keep up argumentative essay, good are our brains naturally geared to receive and facilitate the technology advancing argumentative essay example, technology is more useful than harmful and it is not the cause of degrade of american argumentative essays example, free argumentative essay about a recent ghetto in the educational field: online education, free argumentative essay on what kind of production system do you think "apple" may have, what kind of production system do you think ‘apple’ may have, good example of tablets in schools: an advantage argumentative essay.

[Client’s Name] [Client’s Professor] [Client’s Subject] [Date Passed]

Example Of Argumentative Essay About Technology In Education

Argumentative essay on technology in education, example of automation vs. jobs argumentative essay, example of digital divide argumentative essay, critical analysis argumentative essays examples, theatre studies argumentative essay examples, technology and its impact on live performing arts, good is u.s. global dominance destructive argumentative essay example, example of the lottery argumentative essay, “just because something is traditional is no reason to do it, of course.”, free argumentative essay about when communication changes face, disadvantages of texting argumentative essay examples, free social media/online dating issues argumentative essay sample, example of argumentative essay on people dependence on technology, an analysis of the use of technology in the classroom argumentative essay examples, example of argumentative essay on an analysis of the use of technology in the classroom, free argumentative essay about the case for human enhancement technologies, example of argumentative essay on technology in the college classroom.

Whether or not the use of technology in the college classroom brings more harm than good, is debatable. While technology has been a central factor in many sectors including business and education, this debate has taken a center stage, with proponents of either side pushing to have their views heard. This paper prominently addresses the pro-technology side of the argument, followed by brief rebuttal and counterarguments.

The Argument for Technology in College Classrooms

Example of argumentative essay on fracking, technology friend or foe argumentative essay examples, use of technology in the classroom argumentative essay examples.

<Student Name> <Name and Section # of course> <Instructor Name>

Co 300 Argumentative Essay Examples

We live in a multimodal world, argumentative essay on a comparative essay on technologys impact on american culture, example of argumentative essay on genetically modified plants, how technology should be used to solve climate change argumentative essay sample, argumentative essay on modern day mass communications.

Mass communication plays a huge role in a person's life, it is literally woven into the fabric of modern society, its economics, politics and culture; it covers international, intergroup and interpersonal relationships. Revolutionary changes that have occurred in recent decades have led to increased media exposure in all areas of life. Information circulating through the channels of communication is transforming society into an information one. Thus, it is necessary to understand the positive and negative features that technological progress implies.

The basic characteristics of the information society are the following (Turow, 2011):

Will it meet global socio-cultural approval argumentative essay, argumentative essay on impact of globalisation and internationalisation on educational contexts, example of why we should increase military spending argumentative essay, argumentative essay on the future of travel agents, how technological dependence enhances students academic performance argumentative essay examples, argumentative essay on dangerous and negative aspects of the new social media and technology, effects of technology on management argumentative essay examples, is internet the source of supernormal profits in businesses argumentative essay examples.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Technology (Real Past Exam/Test)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 5 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of technology from a real past IELTS exam/test.

Here are some important links to help you improve your scores as well:

Exlusive Patreon Essays

Recent IELTS Writing Task 1 Topics

Recent IELTS Writing Task 2 Topics

Recent IELTS Speaking Topics

Some believe technology has made our lives too complex and the solution is to lead a simpler life without technology. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Real Past IELTS Tests

Many are of the opinion that technology has done more harm than good and we ought to simplify in order to lead more fulfilling lives. I agree that technology has its drawbacks but I think turning away from technology is impractical.

The main reason that technology has complicated life for people today is that it has made people perpetually available. In the past, a worker might work a 9 to 5 then come home to spend time with their family, have dinner and enjoy their private life. That simplicity is largely no longer the case. Once work ends, you can still get email notifications and phone calls from managers or co-workers. The end result is that you can never be fully present in the moment because work always threatens to pull you back.

Although life has become more complicated and this is a negative development, shutting yourself off from technology would only serve to isolate people from the world. If you want to stay in touch with friends and know about events in your area, it is essential to have a phone. You can use Facebook Messenger to cheaply chat with individuals or make group plans. Email is an indispensable element of nearly every job. Without it, you are filtering out quality jobs and predetermining manual work as your vocation.

In conclusion, although technology has hurt people, turning away from it is not feasible today without making drastic sacrifices. Instead, people ought to seek ways to compartmentalise technology in order to live happier, more satisfying lives.

1. Many are of the opinion that technology has done more harm than good and we ought to simplify in order to lead more fulfilling lives. 2. I agree that technology has its drawbacks but I think turning away from technology is impractical.

• Paraphrase the overall topic for the essay.
• Include your opinion – choose a side!

1. The main reason that technology has complicated life for people today is that it has made people perpetually available. 2. In the past, a worker might work a 9 to 5 then come home to spend time with their family, have dinner and enjoy their private life. 3. That simplicity is largely no longer the case. 4. Once work ends, you can still get email notifications and phone calls from managers or co-workers. 5. The end result is that you can never be fully present in the moment because work always threatens to pull you back.

• Write a topic sentence with a main idea at the end – for me it is being perpetually available.
• Begin to develop it. I use a hypothetical example here.
• Vary up your long and short sentences for effect.
• Be specific – meniote the notifications, phone calls, etc.
• State the result to finish the paragraph.

1. Although life has become more complicated and this is a negative development, shutting yourself off from technology would only serve to isolate people from the world. 2. If you want to stay in touch with friends and know about events in your area, it is essential to have a phone. 3. You can use Facebook Messenger to cheaply chat with individuals or make group plans. 4. Email is an indispensable element of nearly every job. 5. Without it, you are filtering out quality jobs and predetermining manual work as your vocation.

• Write another topic sentence with a clear main idea at the end.
• Develop it with specific detail.
• Make sure that you use really specific examples such as Facebook Messenger.
• Keep developing the same main idea.
• State the result again.

1. In conclusion, although technology has hurt people, turning away from it is not feasible today without making drastic sacrifices. 2. Instead, people ought to seek ways to compartmentalise technology in order to live happier, more satisfying lives.

• Repeat your opinion.
• Include a final thought/extra detail for full points from the IELTS examiner for task achievement.

Many are of the opinion that technology has done more harm than good and we ought to simplify in order to lead more fulfilling lives . I agree that technology has its drawbacks but I think turning away from technology is impractical .

The main reason that technology has complicated life for people today is that it has made people perpetually available . In the past, a worker might work a 9 to 5 then come home to spend time with their family, have dinner and enjoy their private life . That simplicity is largely no longer the case . Once work ends, you can still get email notifications and phone calls from managers or co-workers. The end result is that you can never be fully present in the moment because work always threatens to pull you back .

Although life has become more complicated and this is a negative development, shutting yourself off from technology would only serve to isolate people from the world. If you want to stay in touch with friends and know about events in your area, it is essential to have a phone. You can use Facebook Messenger to cheaply chat with individuals or make group plans. Email is an indispensable element of nearly every job. Without it, you are filtering out quality jobs and predetermining manual work as your vocation .

In conclusion, although technology has hurt people, turning away from it is not feasible today without making drastic sacrifices . Instead, people ought to seek ways to compartmentalise technology in order to live happier, more satisfying lives .

done more harm than good hurt more than helped

lead more fulfilling lives be happier

turning away giving up

impractical not useful/unrealistic

perpetually available can always be contacted

spend time with hang out with

private life personal life

no longer the case not ture anymore

notifications updates

end result final outcome

fully present in the moment mindful, not distracted

threatens risks

pull you back bring you back to

shutting yourself off isolating

only serve to isolate keeps you away from others

stay in touch keep in touch

essential crucial

cheaply chat inexpensively communicate with

indispensable element crucial part

filtering out avoiding

predetermining manual work making it so you can’t do other jobs

vocation job/calling

feasible realistic

drastic sacrifices big cuts, giving up a lot

compartmentalise technology keep your phone in its place

more satisfying lives living happier

Pronunciation

dʌn mɔː hɑːm ðæn gʊd   liːd mɔː fʊlˈfɪlɪŋ lɪvz ˈtɜːnɪŋ əˈweɪ   ɪmˈpræktɪkəl pəˈpɛʧʊəli əˈveɪləbl spɛnd taɪm wɪð   ˈpraɪvɪt laɪf nəʊ ˈlɒŋgə ðə keɪs ˌnəʊtɪfɪˈkeɪʃənz   ɛnd rɪˈzʌlt   ˈfʊli ˈprɛznt ɪn ðə ˈməʊmənt   ˈθrɛtnz   pʊl juː bæk ˈʃʌtɪŋ jɔːˈsɛlf ɒf   ˈəʊnli sɜːv tuː ˈaɪsəleɪt   steɪ ɪn tʌʧ   ɪˈsɛnʃəl   ˈʧiːpli ʧæt   indispensible ˈɛlɪmənt   ˈfɪltərɪŋ aʊt   ˌpriːdɪˈtɜːmɪnɪŋ ˈmænjʊəl wɜːk   vəʊˈkeɪʃən ˈfiːzəbl   ˈdræstɪk ˈsækrɪfaɪsɪz compartmentalize tɛkˈnɒləʤi   mɔː ˈsætɪsfaɪɪŋ lɪvz

Listen and repeat:

Vocabulary Practice

Remember and fill in the blanks:

Many are of the opinion that technology has d_________________ and we ought to simplify in order to l _________________ . I agree that technology has its drawbacks but I think t_________________ from technology is i_________________ .

The main reason that technology has complicated life for people today is that it has made people p_________________ . In the past, a worker might work a 9 to 5 then come home to s_________________ their family, have dinner and enjoy their p _________________ . That simplicity is largely n_________________ . Once work ends, you can still get email n_________________ and phone calls from managers or co-workers. The e_________________ is that you can never be f_________________ because work always t_________________ to p_________________ .

Although life has become more complicated and this is a negative development, s_________________ from technology would o_________________ people from the world. If you want to s_________________ with friends and know about events in your area, it is e_________________ to have a phone. You can use Facebook Messenger to c_________________ with individuals or make group plans. Email is an i_________________ of nearly every job. Without it, you are f_________________ quality jobs and p_________________ as your v_________________ .

In conclusion, although technology has hurt people, turning away from it is not f_________________ today without making d_________________ . Instead, people ought to seek ways to c_________________ in order to live happier, m_________________ .

Listen and check:

Listening Practice

Watch here about someone who gave up their phone for 30 days:

Reading Practice

Here’s a related article that may also help you think of some ideas:

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/14/137472487/what-it-means-to-be-always-on-a-smartphone

Speaking Practice

Mobile phones and smartphones.

• What are the advantages of smartphones?
• Should children be allowed to own smartphones?
• Do you thinks have a major or minor impact on mental health?
• Where in your country is it not appropriate to use a phone?
• Do you think smartphone usage may decline in the future?

Writing Practice

Write about the following topic then check my sample answer essay below:

Many people believe that social networking sites (such as Facebook) have a huge negative impact on both individuals and society. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Real past IELTS Exams/Tests

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer: Social Networking Sites (Real IELTS Test)

IELTS Student Sample Corrections

The success ful in technological development has created a more complicated life for people and in order to solve this issue and it is thought [A1]  to live without the appearance of technology. In my opinion, I hold a balanced view in this issue. [A2]  

Living without technology could be the best solution to solve the complexity of our lives, especially for elderly or technophobes. The main reason is because in the present we are surrounded by technological devices, however, old people and those who do not want to adopt the great development of this will find it really hard to use, resulting in creating harder and more complex life for them. [A3]   It can easily be seen that people aged 60 or above and technophobes will prefer using physical keyboard phones such as Nokia 550 rather than using state-of-the-art and newest smartphones like iPhone X or Note 8. [A4]  

However, without the need of technology, our lives could be quite hard in many situations that required devices. The main reason because by using smart devices, it helps to reduce the number of tasks needed, instead, it now becomes the responsibility of technological devices, these jobs will be done by machines, hence, increasing people’s life quality. In the past, women spent hours for household tasks, such as sweeping the floors and cooking meals for the whole family, now, these tasks are given to floor-sweeping robots and automated cookers, meaning they will have more time for leisure and their beloved. [A5]  

In conclusion, although living a life without technology could be true to solve the complicated lives in today’s world, using automated machines will handle many tasks that in the past humans needed to involve in. [A6]  

  [A1] Many are of the opinion that we should try to…

  [A2] Not a good idea to do this! It asks to the extent you agree/disagree – make it clear that you only partly agree!

  [A3] Way too vague! We already know this – describe how it is harder or more complex!

  [A4] This is confusing because this isn’t an argument about technology v no technology it is old v new technology so it is irrelevant….

  [A5] Good paragraph in general with a clear main idea and enough support. I’m not sure about the example though because people still do household chores and cook meals… Those tasks have become EASIER – that would be a better argument.

  [A6] There is no position in this essay! Just saying ‘I hold a balanced view’ is an automatic 5 for Task Achievement regardless of everything else…

Recommended For You

Latest IELTS Writing Task 1 2024 (Graphs, Charts, Maps, Processes)

by Dave | Sample Answers | 147 Comments

These are the most recent/latest IELTS Writing Task 1 Task topics and questions starting in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and continuing into 2024. ...

Recent IELTS Writing Topics and Questions 2024

by Dave | Sample Answers | 342 Comments

Read here all the newest IELTS questions and topics from 2024 and previous years with sample answers/essays. Be sure to check out my ...

Find my Newest IELTS Post Here – Updated Daily!

by Dave | IELTS FAQ | 18 Comments

IELTS Speaking Vocabulary: Talking about Cell Phones/Smartphones/Mobile Phones

by Dave | IELTS Speaking IELTS Vocabulary | 2 Comments

Phones (cell phones, smartphones, and mobile phones - they're all the same thing!) are a really common topic on the IELTS Speaking test. They could come ...

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Unhealthy Foods (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

by Dave | Real Past Tests | 2 Comments

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample essay on the topic of unhealthy foods from the real exam on the topic of unhealthy foods and ...

IELTS Writing Task 2 Sample Answer Essay: Retirement (Real Past IELTS Tests/Exams)

This is an IELTS Writing Task 2 sample answer essay on the topic of retirement from the real past IELTS test/exam. It is ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

hi there, I am worried about my writing . i am going take my real test 12th September.its really close to me;I still suffer a number of problem in task 2. specially I can’t organise ideas,while i am writing. would you help me by giving me how can i generate ideas insted of any task .please do something for me i am registered for 12th September

Hi Jayed, you can read here about brainstorming ideas: https://howtodoielts.com/how-to-brainstorm-ideas-10-amazing-ways/

Babylon Resources Ltd., which is a leading IT firm, develops & implements different IT solutions to make your business life easier. Since our inception, we have been maintaining a sophisticated code of service level and standard, which drives us to achieve our clients’ trust & become their reliable technology partner. We have a strong mobile games & apps development team who is always working on developing apps & games. Currently, we are working on some unique games & apps. We do this by investing in the continuous improvement of our products and services by building a team which is knowledgeable and dedicated to ensuring that we exceed the service needs of our customers. If you want to know about our service then <a href=” https://brlbd.com/ “> click here </a>

you have discussed both sides in the sample essay and you partially agree that it is a negative development. Right?

Yes, though it is important to say that it is an overall opinion – just to be safe!

Exclusive Ebooks, PDFs and more from me!

Sign up for patreon.

Don't miss out!

"The highest quality materials anywhere on the internet! Dave improved my writing and vocabulary so much. Really affordable options you don't want to miss out on!"

Minh, Vietnam

Hi, I’m Dave! Welcome to my IELTS exclusive resources! Before you commit I want to explain very clearly why there’s no one better to help you learn about IELTS and improve your English at the same time... Read more

Patreon Exclusive Ebooks Available Now!

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge at Wharton Podcast

Why breaking up big tech could do more harm than good, march 26, 2019 • 27 min listen.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren has solidified her party’s growing disenchantment with Big Tech by proposing to break up Amazon, Google and Facebook -- but doing so could result in unintended consequences, experts say.

Wharton's Herbert Hovenkamp, George Washington University's William Kovacic and Hemant Bhargava from UC-Davis discuss the merits of Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break up Big Tech firms.

Earlier this month, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren solidified her party’s growing disenchantment with Big Tech by proposing to break up companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook. “Today’s big tech companies have too much power — too much power over our economy, our society and our democracy,” the 2020 presidential candidate wrote in a March 8th blog post. “They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. And in the process, they have hurt small businesses and stifled innovation.”

Clouding the issue of breaking up Big Tech is that these firms arguably make consumers’ lives better by offering such things as free Google searches, social media connections on Facebook and low prices with fast, free shipping through Amazon. But Warren argues that they are impeding competition by buying up or squashing smaller rivals — and ultimately harming consumers. She cited the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft in the 1990s that tamed its ways and made room for an upstart — Google — to rise. “Aren’t we glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing?”

But experts from Wharton and elsewhere challenge some of the basic premises of her proposal and warn that breaking up these three companies could result in unintended consequences that ultimately would harm consumers. The presence of Amazon, Google and Facebook in the market, they said, have lowered prices of products and services to consumers and provided a marketing platform for small companies at little or no cost. Weakening them would not necessarily level the playing field, but could instead route profits back to other big businesses — the old incumbents.

The Legal Ground

First, it’s critical to set aside the political rhetoric to see if her proposal even has legal merit. “We have to disaggregate some of the informational and political concerns from the antitrust concerns,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert who holds a joint appointment as a University of Pennsylvania law professor and Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. He and other experts spoke about the merits of Warren’s idea on the Knowledge at Wharton show on SiriusXM . (Listen to the podcast at the top of the page.)

“The single biggest fundamental problem with the Warren proposals is that they do not sort out who is being harmed and who is benefiting.” –Herbert Hovenkamp

Today’s antitrust enforcement policy hinges on whether or not a company is acting for the welfare of consumers . According to Hovenkamp, Amazon’s “very low” margins allow it to charge lower prices while Google “most commonly charges a price of zero” to consumers. On the other hand, “they are very big companies, and that creates questions about whom the antitrust laws are supposed to protect,” he said. Are regulators supposed to protect consumers — or rivals of Big Tech that feel squeezed and want to see Amazon, Google and Facebook taken down?

Warren doesn’t make it clear. “The single biggest fundamental problem with the Warren proposals is that they do not sort out who is being harmed and who is benefiting,” Hovenkamp said. “And I found them somewhat distressing, because Elizabeth Warren has dedicated her entire professional career to protection of consumers. But these proposals seem calculated to me to raise consumer prices, reduce consumer variety, and it is kind of hard to figure out who is systematically benefited by them.”

Then there’s the complexity of the break-up itself. How exactly does one dismantle three behemoths? “Getting there has proven historically to be very difficult,” said William Kovacic, a former commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission who is now a professor of law and policy at George Washington University, on the radio show. “You can do it, but it is hardly an easy venture.”

Competitive Advantages

Warren contends that Big Tech hurts small firms. “There are plenty of small businesses who are injured by Amazon,” Hovenkamp said, “but there are at least as many small businesses who are benefiting because Amazon acts as their broker” for sales and marketing they may not have had the resources to do on their own. “You’ve got to start with the question, who is getting hurt? And then decide whether that group is worthy of being your constituency,” he added.

Hemant Bhargava, technology management chair at the University of California, Davis, said Warren has good intentions but “the disease [she is trying to cure] is not that bad,” he said. “These companies … are certainly big, but they are not monopolies. They are nowhere near as dominant as Microsoft was, for example, in the 1990s with over 90% of market share in operating systems.” (Warren has pointed out that nearly half of all e-commerce business goes through Amazon, while Google and Facebook account for more than 70% of internet traffic.)

“These companies … are certainly big, but they are not monopolies. They are nowhere near as dominant as Microsoft was … in the 1990s.” –Hemant Bhargava

The government tried to break up Microsoft but didn’t succeed beyond putting restrictions on its market behavior. Eventually, it was a better widget that humbled Microsoft, Bhargava believes. “Microsoft lost its lead with Internet Explorer, not because of any help from the government or its other [agencies], but simply because other firms innovated better and faster,” he said. Market forces successfully checked its behavior. “The evidence that the government actions led to good results is really not there.”

As for the argument that tech giants enjoy big competitive advantages because of network effects, which make them more valuable as more users join them, there is a market solution for that. Hovenkamp noted that it is possible to thrive in a market where there is a dominant company — by specializing. For example, a dating site can do well against Tinder or Match.com by targeting niches. “They’ve got all kinds of dating sites: for older people, for people of certain religious backgrounds, and so on,” he said.

Warren’s Two-pronged Strategy

In her proposal to break up Big Tech, Warren has put forward two ways of curbing their market power. One is to mandate that companies with revenues of at least $25 billion and that offer an online marketplace or platform to the public would be designated as ‘platform utilities.’ As such, they can’t participate on the platform since they could give themselves an advantage.

But this rule not only requires a new statute, it could be harmful to consumers, experts said. Imagine if Amazon could not sell its Amazon Basics-branded products on its own site. Take household batteries, which Amazon Basics sells for 10% to 50% less than branded rivals, Hovenkamp said. By banning Amazon Basics, consumers would pay higher prices for Duracell batteries, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, a behemoth. Or shoppers could buy Energizer, Rayovac and Eveready batteries, whose parent is a “very large battery company,” he said. Hovenkamp noted that name-brand batteries have markups in excess of 50% or 60%.

Warren’s second idea is to appoint regulators who would reverse “illegal and anti-competitive” tech mergers such as Amazon’s deal with Whole Foods and Zappos, Facebook’s WhatsApp and Instagram purchase and Google’s Waze, Nest and DoubleClick acquisitions. The idea “has some real merit at a particular level,” Hovenkamp said. “A case is to be made that some of these independent firms that the large platforms have acquired could have developed into rivals.”

“It is a long, long way … to put all of these measures in place.” –William Kovacic

But Bhargava said restricting big tech companies from buying smaller startups can be harmful. For many startups, the initial, say, $100 million they get from venture capitalists is given with the expectation that they will be bought by a Google or Facebook. “For many of these firms, the only way out is to get acquired by these big tech companies,” he said. “If you somehow tell them that is not going to happen, then they may never reach the point of developing that ambitious product.”

Moreover, unwinding the transactions cited above would be “an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. Not impossible, but you are going to have to go into a federal court and explain a theory of competitive harm,” Kovacic said. The tech giants would sue, and it would be tough for regulators to win in court. “The U.S. jurisprudence allows you to provide evidence of consumer benefits, and to emphasize those benefits.”

Looked at another way, if regulators could unwind mergers, then it must also find a way to stop such “anti-competitive” deals from happening in the future. That means there would have to be rules prohibiting big companies from acquiring certain small firms, Kovacic said. That takes new legislation. “To make that truly effective, to have that complete barrier to acquisitions in place, requires going to the Congress and changing the law.”

The only way Warren’s two ideas would get through Congress is if there was “some cataclysm, some external shock that is a result of a corporate scandal, a further set of revelations that calls into question the legitimacy of the sector,” Kovacic said. One recent example is the Dodd Frank act that resulted from the severity of the financial crisis, he added. But barring such disasters, “it is a long, long way … to put all of these measures in place.”

More From Knowledge at Wharton

Can the Mobile Wave Help Us Navigate the AI Wave?

Who Benefits in the Deal Between Reddit and OpenAI?

This Media Bias Detector Analyzes News Reports in Real Time

Looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Can Social Media Have A Structure That Does More Good Than Harm?

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly talks with Professor Zeynep Tufekci of the University of North Carolina about how social media impacts people's social connections and private lives.

Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Essay Service Examples Technology Internet

Social Media Does More Harm Than Good Argumentative Essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Cyber Crimes
• Cyber Security

There are some processes and technologies that are formed for the security of computers, software,...

SMEs face a severe issue when it comes to cyber security, the issue faces all kinds of...

• Effective Communication
• Social Media

The enourmous growth in the use of the Internet over the last decade has led to radical changes to...

The “Virtual World” the perfect connotation for today’s scenario. In the age of 21st century, we...

• Effects of Technology

Have you ever thought about how the Internet affects our cognitive abilities and changes our way...

I chose this topic because as a teenager myself, I’ve grown up in a world that has invariably...

Society especially the young kids have become dependent on the internet to express themselves and...

Internet is ubiquitous in every household across the globe. Today, more than 3 billion people,...

• Technology in Education

Formerly, around ten years ago or maybe even less, we were not familiar with the notorious term...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Skip to content

Read the latest news stories about Mailman faculty, research, and events. 

Departments

We integrate an innovative skills-based curriculum, research collaborations, and hands-on field experience to prepare students.

Learn more about our research centers, which focus on critical issues in public health.

Our Faculty

Meet the faculty of the Mailman School of Public Health. 

Become a Student

Life and community, how to apply.

Learn how to apply to the Mailman School of Public Health. 

Just How Harmful Is Social Media? Our Experts Weigh-In.

A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook was aware of mental health risks linked to the use of its Instagram app but kept those findings secret. Internal research by the social media giant found that Instagram worsened body image issues for one in three teenage girls, and all teenage users of the app linked it to experiences of anxiety and depression. It isn’t the first evidence of social media’s harms. Watchdog groups have identified Facebook and Instagram as avenues for cyberbullying , and reports have linked TikTok to dangerous and antisocial behavior, including a recent spate of school vandalism .

As social media has proliferated worldwide—Facebook has 2.85 billion users—so too have concerns over how the platforms are affecting individual and collective wellbeing. Social media is criticized for being addictive by design and for its role in the spread of misinformation on critical issues from vaccine safety to election integrity, as well as the rise of right-wing extremism. Social media companies, and many users, defend the platforms as avenues for promoting creativity and community-building. And some research has pushed back against the idea that social media raises the risk for depression in teens . So just how healthy or unhealthy is social media?

Two experts from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and Columbia Psychiatry share their insights into one crucial aspect of social media’s influence—its effect on the mental health of young people and adults. Deborah Glasofer , associate professor of psychology in psychiatry, conducts psychotherapy development research for adults with eating disorders and teaches about cognitive behavioral therapy. She is the co-author of the book Eating Disorders: What Everyone Needs to Know. Claude Mellins , Professor of medical psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences, studies wellbeing among college and graduate students, among other topics, and serves as program director of CopeColumbia, a peer support program for Columbia faculty and staff whose mental health has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. She co-led the SHIFT research study to reduce sexual violence among undergraduates. Both use social media.

What do we know about the mental health risks of social media use?

Mellins : Facebook and Instagram and other social media platforms are important sources of socialization and relationship-building for many young people. Although there are important benefits, social media can also provide platforms for bullying and exclusion, unrealistic expectations about body image and sources of popularity, normalization of risk-taking behaviors, and can be detrimental to mental health. Girls and young people who identify as sexual and gender minorities can be especially vulnerable as targets. Young people’s brains are still developing, and as individuals, young people are developing their own identities. What they see on social media can define what is expected in ways that is not accurate and that can be destructive to identity development and self-image. Adolescence is a time of risk-taking, which is both a strength and a vulnerability. Social media can exacerbate risks, as we have seen played out in the news. 

Although there are important benefits, social media can also provide platforms for bullying and exclusion, unrealistic expectations about body image and sources of popularity, normalization of risk-taking behaviors, and can be detrimental to mental health. – Claude Mellins

Glasofer : For those vulnerable to developing an eating disorder, social media may be especially unhelpful because it allows people to easily compare their appearance to their friends, to celebrities, even older images of themselves. Research tells us that how much someone engages with photo-related activities like posting and sharing photos on Facebook or Instagram is associated with less body acceptance and more obsessing about appearance. For adolescent girls in particular, the more time they spend on social media directly relates to how much they absorb the idea that being thin is ideal, are driven to try to become thin, and/or overly scrutinize their own bodies. Also, if someone is vulnerable to an eating disorder, they may be especially attracted to seeking out unhelpful information—which is all too easy to find on social media.

Are there any upsides to social media?

Mellins : For young people, social media provides a platform to help them figure out who they are. For very shy or introverted young people, it can be a way to meet others with similar interests. During the pandemic, social media made it possible for people to connect in ways when in-person socialization was not possible.  Social support and socializing are critical influences on coping and resilience. Friends we couldn’t see in person were available online and allowed us important points of connection. On the other hand, fewer opportunities for in-person interactions with friends and family meant less of a real-world check on some of the negative influences of social media.

Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. – Deborah Glasofer

Glasofer : Whether it’s social media or in person, a good peer group makes the difference. A group of friends that connects over shared interests like art or music, and is balanced in their outlook on eating and appearance, is a positive. In fact, a good peer group online may be protective against negative in-person influences. For those with a history of eating disorders, there are body-positive and recovery groups on social media. Some people find these groups to be supportive; for others, it’s more beneficial to move on and pursue other interests.

Is there a healthy way to be on social media?

Mellins : If you feel social media is a negative experience, you might need a break. Disengaging with social media permanently is more difficult­—especially for young people. These platforms are powerful tools for connecting and staying up-to-date with friends and family. Social events, too. If you’re not on social media then you’re reliant on your friends to reach out to you personally, which doesn’t always happen. It’s complicated.

Glasofer : When you find yourself feeling badly about yourself in relation to what other people are posting about themselves, then social media is not doing you any favors. If there is anything on social media that is negatively affecting your actions or your choices­—for example, if you’re starting to eat restrictively or exercise excessively—then it’s time to reassess. Parents should check-in with their kids about their lives on social media. In general, I recommend limiting social media— creating boundaries that are reasonable and work for you—so you can be present with people in your life. I also recommend social media vacations. It’s good to take the time to notice the difference between the virtual world and the real world.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

How Harmful Is Social Media?

In April, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt published an essay in The Atlantic in which he sought to explain, as the piece’s title had it, “Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid.” Anyone familiar with Haidt’s work in the past half decade could have anticipated his answer: social media. Although Haidt concedes that political polarization and factional enmity long predate the rise of the platforms, and that there are plenty of other factors involved, he believes that the tools of virality—Facebook’s Like and Share buttons, Twitter’s Retweet function—have algorithmically and irrevocably corroded public life. He has determined that a great historical discontinuity can be dated with some precision to the period between 2010 and 2014, when these features became widely available on phones.

“What changed in the 2010s?” Haidt asks, reminding his audience that a former Twitter developer had once compared the Retweet button to the provision of a four-year-old with a loaded weapon. “A mean tweet doesn’t kill anyone; it is an attempt to shame or punish someone publicly while broadcasting one’s own virtue, brilliance, or tribal loyalties. It’s more a dart than a bullet, causing pain but no fatalities. Even so, from 2009 to 2012, Facebook and Twitter passed out roughly a billion dart guns globally. We’ve been shooting one another ever since.” While the right has thrived on conspiracy-mongering and misinformation, the left has turned punitive: “When everyone was issued a dart gun in the early 2010s, many left-leaning institutions began shooting themselves in the brain. And, unfortunately, those were the brains that inform, instruct, and entertain most of the country.” Haidt’s prevailing metaphor of thoroughgoing fragmentation is the story of the Tower of Babel: the rise of social media has “unwittingly dissolved the mortar of trust, belief in institutions, and shared stories that had held a large and diverse secular democracy together.”

These are, needless to say, common concerns. Chief among Haidt’s worries is that use of social media has left us particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias, or the propensity to fix upon evidence that shores up our prior beliefs. Haidt acknowledges that the extant literature on social media’s effects is large and complex, and that there is something in it for everyone. On January 6, 2021, he was on the phone with Chris Bail, a sociologist at Duke and the author of the recent book “ Breaking the Social Media Prism ,” when Bail urged him to turn on the television. Two weeks later, Haidt wrote to Bail, expressing his frustration at the way Facebook officials consistently cited the same handful of studies in their defense. He suggested that the two of them collaborate on a comprehensive literature review that they could share, as a Google Doc, with other researchers. (Haidt had experimented with such a model before.) Bail was cautious. He told me, “What I said to him was, ‘Well, you know, I’m not sure the research is going to bear out your version of the story,’ and he said, ‘Why don’t we see?’ ”

Bail emphasized that he is not a “platform-basher.” He added, “In my book, my main take is, Yes, the platforms play a role, but we are greatly exaggerating what it’s possible for them to do—how much they could change things no matter who’s at the helm at these companies—and we’re profoundly underestimating the human element, the motivation of users.” He found Haidt’s idea of a Google Doc appealing, in the way that it would produce a kind of living document that existed “somewhere between scholarship and public writing.” Haidt was eager for a forum to test his ideas. “I decided that if I was going to be writing about this—what changed in the universe, around 2014, when things got weird on campus and elsewhere—once again, I’d better be confident I’m right,” he said. “I can’t just go off my feelings and my readings of the biased literature. We all suffer from confirmation bias, and the only cure is other people who don’t share your own.”

Haidt and Bail, along with a research assistant, populated the document over the course of several weeks last year, and in November they invited about two dozen scholars to contribute. Haidt told me, of the difficulties of social-scientific methodology, “When you first approach a question, you don’t even know what it is. ‘Is social media destroying democracy, yes or no?’ That’s not a good question. You can’t answer that question. So what can you ask and answer?” As the document took on a life of its own, tractable rubrics emerged—Does social media make people angrier or more affectively polarized? Does it create political echo chambers? Does it increase the probability of violence? Does it enable foreign governments to increase political dysfunction in the United States and other democracies? Haidt continued, “It’s only after you break it up into lots of answerable questions that you see where the complexity lies.”

Haidt came away with the sense, on balance, that social media was in fact pretty bad. He was disappointed, but not surprised, that Facebook’s response to his article relied on the same three studies they’ve been reciting for years. “This is something you see with breakfast cereals,” he said, noting that a cereal company “might say, ‘Did you know we have twenty-five per cent more riboflavin than the leading brand?’ They’ll point to features where the evidence is in their favor, which distracts you from the over-all fact that your cereal tastes worse and is less healthy.”

After Haidt’s piece was published, the Google Doc—“Social Media and Political Dysfunction: A Collaborative Review”—was made available to the public . Comments piled up, and a new section was added, at the end, to include a miscellany of Twitter threads and Substack essays that appeared in response to Haidt’s interpretation of the evidence. Some colleagues and kibbitzers agreed with Haidt. But others, though they might have shared his basic intuition that something in our experience of social media was amiss, drew upon the same data set to reach less definitive conclusions, or even mildly contradictory ones. Even after the initial flurry of responses to Haidt’s article disappeared into social-media memory, the document, insofar as it captured the state of the social-media debate, remained a lively artifact.

Near the end of the collaborative project’s introduction, the authors warn, “We caution readers not to simply add up the number of studies on each side and declare one side the winner.” The document runs to more than a hundred and fifty pages, and for each question there are affirmative and dissenting studies, as well as some that indicate mixed results. According to one paper, “Political expressions on social media and the online forum were found to (a) reinforce the expressers’ partisan thought process and (b) harden their pre-existing political preferences,” but, according to another, which used data collected during the 2016 election, “Over the course of the campaign, we found media use and attitudes remained relatively stable. Our results also showed that Facebook news use was related to modest over-time spiral of depolarization. Furthermore, we found that people who use Facebook for news were more likely to view both pro- and counter-attitudinal news in each wave. Our results indicated that counter-attitudinal exposure increased over time, which resulted in depolarization.” If results like these seem incompatible, a perplexed reader is given recourse to a study that says, “Our findings indicate that political polarization on social media cannot be conceptualized as a unified phenomenon, as there are significant cross-platform differences.”

Interested in echo chambers? “Our results show that the aggregation of users in homophilic clusters dominate online interactions on Facebook and Twitter,” which seems convincing—except that, as another team has it, “We do not find evidence supporting a strong characterization of ‘echo chambers’ in which the majority of people’s sources of news are mutually exclusive and from opposite poles.” By the end of the file, the vaguely patronizing top-line recommendation against simple summation begins to make more sense. A document that originated as a bulwark against confirmation bias could, as it turned out, just as easily function as a kind of generative device to support anybody’s pet conviction. The only sane response, it seemed, was simply to throw one’s hands in the air.

When I spoke to some of the researchers whose work had been included, I found a combination of broad, visceral unease with the current situation—with the banefulness of harassment and trolling; with the opacity of the platforms; with, well, the widespread presentiment that of course social media is in many ways bad—and a contrastive sense that it might not be catastrophically bad in some of the specific ways that many of us have come to take for granted as true. This was not mere contrarianism, and there was no trace of gleeful mythbusting; the issue was important enough to get right. When I told Bail that the upshot seemed to me to be that exactly nothing was unambiguously clear, he suggested that there was at least some firm ground. He sounded a bit less apocalyptic than Haidt.

“A lot of the stories out there are just wrong,” he told me. “The political echo chamber has been massively overstated. Maybe it’s three to five per cent of people who are properly in an echo chamber.” Echo chambers, as hotboxes of confirmation bias, are counterproductive for democracy. But research indicates that most of us are actually exposed to a wider range of views on social media than we are in real life, where our social networks—in the original use of the term—are rarely heterogeneous. (Haidt told me that this was an issue on which the Google Doc changed his mind; he became convinced that echo chambers probably aren’t as widespread a problem as he’d once imagined.) And too much of a focus on our intuitions about social media’s echo-chamber effect could obscure the relevant counterfactual: a conservative might abandon Twitter only to watch more Fox News. “Stepping outside your echo chamber is supposed to make you moderate, but maybe it makes you more extreme,” Bail said. The research is inchoate and ongoing, and it’s difficult to say anything on the topic with absolute certainty. But this was, in part, Bail’s point: we ought to be less sure about the particular impacts of social media.

Bail went on, “The second story is foreign misinformation.” It’s not that misinformation doesn’t exist, or that it hasn’t had indirect effects, especially when it creates perverse incentives for the mainstream media to cover stories circulating online. Haidt also draws convincingly upon the work of Renée DiResta, the research manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory, to sketch out a potential future in which the work of shitposting has been outsourced to artificial intelligence, further polluting the informational environment. But, at least so far, very few Americans seem to suffer from consistent exposure to fake news—“probably less than two per cent of Twitter users, maybe fewer now, and for those who were it didn’t change their opinions,” Bail said. This was probably because the people likeliest to consume such spectacles were the sort of people primed to believe them in the first place. “In fact,” he said, “echo chambers might have done something to quarantine that misinformation.”

The final story that Bail wanted to discuss was the “proverbial rabbit hole, the path to algorithmic radicalization,” by which YouTube might serve a viewer increasingly extreme videos. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that this does happen, at least on occasion, and such anecdotes are alarming to hear. But a new working paper led by Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth, found that almost all extremist content is either consumed by subscribers to the relevant channels—a sign of actual demand rather than manipulation or preference falsification—or encountered via links from external sites. It’s easy to see why we might prefer if this were not the case: algorithmic radicalization is presumably a simpler problem to solve than the fact that there are people who deliberately seek out vile content. “These are the three stories—echo chambers, foreign influence campaigns, and radicalizing recommendation algorithms—but, when you look at the literature, they’ve all been overstated.” He thought that these findings were crucial for us to assimilate, if only to help us understand that our problems may lie beyond technocratic tinkering. He explained, “Part of my interest in getting this research out there is to demonstrate that everybody is waiting for an Elon Musk to ride in and save us with an algorithm”—or, presumably, the reverse—“and it’s just not going to happen.”

When I spoke with Nyhan, he told me much the same thing: “The most credible research is way out of line with the takes.” He noted, of extremist content and misinformation, that reliable research that “measures exposure to these things finds that the people consuming this content are small minorities who have extreme views already.” The problem with the bulk of the earlier research, Nyhan told me, is that it’s almost all correlational. “Many of these studies will find polarization on social media,” he said. “But that might just be the society we live in reflected on social media!” He hastened to add, “Not that this is untroubling, and none of this is to let these companies, which are exercising a lot of power with very little scrutiny, off the hook. But a lot of the criticisms of them are very poorly founded. . . . The expansion of Internet access coincides with fifteen other trends over time, and separating them is very difficult. The lack of good data is a huge problem insofar as it lets people project their own fears into this area.” He told me, “It’s hard to weigh in on the side of ‘We don’t know, the evidence is weak,’ because those points are always going to be drowned out in our discourse. But these arguments are systematically underprovided in the public domain.”

In his Atlantic article, Haidt leans on a working paper by two social scientists, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen and Lisa Oswald, who took on a comprehensive meta-analysis of about five hundred papers and concluded that “the large majority of reported associations between digital media use and trust appear to be detrimental for democracy.” Haidt writes, “The literature is complex—some studies show benefits, particularly in less developed democracies—but the review found that, on balance, social media amplifies political polarization; foments populism, especially right-wing populism; and is associated with the spread of misinformation.” Nyhan was less convinced that the meta-analysis supported such categorical verdicts, especially once you bracketed the kinds of correlational findings that might simply mirror social and political dynamics. He told me, “If you look at their summary of studies that allow for causal inferences—it’s very mixed.”

As for the studies Nyhan considered most methodologically sound, he pointed to a 2020 article called “The Welfare Effects of Social Media,” by Hunt Allcott, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer, and Matthew Gentzkow. For four weeks prior to the 2018 midterm elections, the authors randomly divided a group of volunteers into two cohorts—one that continued to use Facebook as usual, and another that was paid to deactivate their accounts for that period. They found that deactivation “(i) reduced online activity, while increasing offline activities such as watching TV alone and socializing with family and friends; (ii) reduced both factual news knowledge and political polarization; (iii) increased subjective well-being; and (iv) caused a large persistent reduction in post-experiment Facebook use.” But Gentzkow reminded me that his conclusions, including that Facebook may slightly increase polarization, had to be heavily qualified: “From other kinds of evidence, I think there’s reason to think social media is not the main driver of increasing polarization over the long haul in the United States.”

In the book “ Why We’re Polarized ,” for example, Ezra Klein invokes the work of such scholars as Lilliana Mason to argue that the roots of polarization might be found in, among other factors, the political realignment and nationalization that began in the sixties, and were then sacralized, on the right, by the rise of talk radio and cable news. These dynamics have served to flatten our political identities, weakening our ability or inclination to find compromise. Insofar as some forms of social media encourage the hardening of connections between our identities and a narrow set of opinions, we might increasingly self-select into mutually incomprehensible and hostile groups; Haidt plausibly suggests that these processes are accelerated by the coalescence of social-media tribes around figures of fearful online charisma. “Social media might be more of an amplifier of other things going on rather than a major driver independently,” Gentzkow argued. “I think it takes some gymnastics to tell a story where it’s all primarily driven by social media, especially when you’re looking at different countries, and across different groups.”

Another study, led by Nejla Asimovic and Joshua Tucker, replicated Gentzkow’s approach in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and they found almost precisely the opposite results: the people who stayed on Facebook were, by the end of the study, more positively disposed to their historic out-groups. The authors’ interpretation was that ethnic groups have so little contact in Bosnia that, for some people, social media is essentially the only place where they can form positive images of one another. “To have a replication and have the signs flip like that, it’s pretty stunning,” Bail told me. “It’s a different conversation in every part of the world.”

Nyhan argued that, at least in wealthy Western countries, we might be too heavily discounting the degree to which platforms have responded to criticism: “Everyone is still operating under the view that algorithms simply maximize engagement in a short-term way” with minimal attention to potential externalities. “That might’ve been true when Zuckerberg had seven people working for him, but there are a lot of considerations that go into these rankings now.” He added, “There’s some evidence that, with reverse-chronological feeds”—streams of unwashed content, which some critics argue are less manipulative than algorithmic curation—“people get exposed to more low-quality content, so it’s another case where a very simple notion of ‘algorithms are bad’ doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It doesn’t mean they’re good, it’s just that we don’t know.”

Bail told me that, over all, he was less confident than Haidt that the available evidence lines up clearly against the platforms. “Maybe there’s a slight majority of studies that say that social media is a net negative, at least in the West, and maybe it’s doing some good in the rest of the world.” But, he noted, “Jon will say that science has this expectation of rigor that can’t keep up with the need in the real world—that even if we don’t have the definitive study that creates the historical counterfactual that Facebook is largely responsible for polarization in the U.S., there’s still a lot pointing in that direction, and I think that’s a fair point.” He paused. “It can’t all be randomized control trials.”

Haidt comes across in conversation as searching and sincere, and, during our exchange, he paused several times to suggest that I include a quote from John Stuart Mill on the importance of good-faith debate to moral progress. In that spirit, I asked him what he thought of the argument, elaborated by some of Haidt’s critics, that the problems he described are fundamentally political, social, and economic, and that to blame social media is to search for lost keys under the streetlamp, where the light is better. He agreed that this was the steelman opponent: there were predecessors for cancel culture in de Tocqueville, and anxiety about new media that went back to the time of the printing press. “This is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, and it’s absolutely up to the prosecution—people like me—to argue that, no, this time it’s different. But it’s a civil case! The evidential standard is not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ as in a criminal case. It’s just a preponderance of the evidence.”

The way scholars weigh the testimony is subject to their disciplinary orientations. Economists and political scientists tend to believe that you can’t even begin to talk about causal dynamics without a randomized controlled trial, whereas sociologists and psychologists are more comfortable drawing inferences on a correlational basis. Haidt believes that conditions are too dire to take the hardheaded, no-reasonable-doubt view. “The preponderance of the evidence is what we use in public health. If there’s an epidemic—when COVID started, suppose all the scientists had said, ‘No, we gotta be so certain before you do anything’? We have to think about what’s actually happening, what’s likeliest to pay off.” He continued, “We have the largest epidemic ever of teen mental health, and there is no other explanation,” he said. “It is a raging public-health epidemic, and the kids themselves say Instagram did it, and we have some evidence, so is it appropriate to say, ‘Nah, you haven’t proven it’?”

This was his attitude across the board. He argued that social media seemed to aggrandize inflammatory posts and to be correlated with a rise in violence; even if only small groups were exposed to fake news, such beliefs might still proliferate in ways that were hard to measure. “In the post-Babel era, what matters is not the average but the dynamics, the contagion, the exponential amplification,” he said. “Small things can grow very quickly, so arguments that Russian disinformation didn’t matter are like COVID arguments that people coming in from China didn’t have contact with a lot of people.” Given the transformative effects of social media, Haidt insisted, it was important to act now, even in the absence of dispositive evidence. “Academic debates play out over decades and are often never resolved, whereas the social-media environment changes year by year,” he said. “We don’t have the luxury of waiting around five or ten years for literature reviews.”

Haidt could be accused of question-begging—of assuming the existence of a crisis that the research might or might not ultimately underwrite. Still, the gap between the two sides in this case might not be quite as wide as Haidt thinks. Skeptics of his strongest claims are not saying that there’s no there there. Just because the average YouTube user is unlikely to be led to Stormfront videos, Nyhan told me, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry that some people are watching Stormfront videos; just because echo chambers and foreign misinformation seem to have had effects only at the margins, Gentzkow said, doesn’t mean they’re entirely irrelevant. “There are many questions here where the thing we as researchers are interested in is how social media affects the average person,” Gentzkow told me. “There’s a different set of questions where all you need is a small number of people to change—questions about ethnic violence in Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, people on YouTube mobilized to do mass shootings. Much of the evidence broadly makes me skeptical that the average effects are as big as the public discussion thinks they are, but I also think there are cases where a small number of people with very extreme views are able to find each other and connect and act.” He added, “That’s where many of the things I’d be most concerned about lie.”

The same might be said about any phenomenon where the base rate is very low but the stakes are very high, such as teen suicide. “It’s another case where those rare edge cases in terms of total social harm may be enormous. You don’t need many teen-age kids to decide to kill themselves or have serious mental-health outcomes in order for the social harm to be really big.” He added, “Almost none of this work is able to get at those edge-case effects, and we have to be careful that if we do establish that the average effect of something is zero, or small, that it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be worried about it—because we might be missing those extremes.” Jaime Settle, a scholar of political behavior at the College of William & Mary and the author of the book “ Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America ,” noted that Haidt is “farther along the spectrum of what most academics who study this stuff are going to say we have strong evidence for.” But she understood his impulse: “We do have serious problems, and I’m glad Jon wrote the piece, and down the road I wouldn’t be surprised if we got a fuller handle on the role of social media in all of this—there are definitely ways in which social media has changed our politics for the worse.”

It’s tempting to sidestep the question of diagnosis entirely, and to evaluate Haidt’s essay not on the basis of predictive accuracy—whether social media will lead to the destruction of American democracy—but as a set of proposals for what we might do better. If he is wrong, how much damage are his prescriptions likely to do? Haidt, to his great credit, does not indulge in any wishful thinking, and if his diagnosis is largely technological his prescriptions are sociopolitical. Two of his three major suggestions seem useful and have nothing to do with social media: he thinks that we should end closed primaries and that children should be given wide latitude for unsupervised play. His recommendations for social-media reform are, for the most part, uncontroversial: he believes that preteens shouldn’t be on Instagram and that platforms should share their data with outside researchers—proposals that are both likely to be beneficial and not very costly.

It remains possible, however, that the true costs of social-media anxieties are harder to tabulate. Gentzkow told me that, for the period between 2016 and 2020, the direct effects of misinformation were difficult to discern. “But it might have had a much larger effect because we got so worried about it—a broader impact on trust,” he said. “Even if not that many people were exposed, the narrative that the world is full of fake news, and you can’t trust anything, and other people are being misled about it—well, that might have had a bigger impact than the content itself.” Nyhan had a similar reaction. “There are genuine questions that are really important, but there’s a kind of opportunity cost that is missed here. There’s so much focus on sweeping claims that aren’t actionable, or unfounded claims we can contradict with data, that are crowding out the harms we can demonstrate, and the things we can test, that could make social media better.” He added, “We’re years into this, and we’re still having an uninformed conversation about social media. It’s totally wild.”

New Yorker Favorites

As he rose in politics, Robert Moses discovered that decisions about New York City’s future would not be based on democracy .

The Muslim tamale king of the Old West .

Wendy Wasserstein on the baby who arrived too soon .

An Oscar-winning filmmaker takes on the Church of Scientology .

The young stowaways thrown overboard at sea .

Fiction by Jhumpa Lahiri: “ A Temporary Matter .”

Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive the best stories from The New Yorker .

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Lydia Polgreen

The Strange Report Fueling the War on Trans Kids

By Lydia Polgreen

Opinion Columnist

I n its upcoming term, the Supreme Court will once again hear a case that involves a highly contentious question that lies at the heart of personal liberty: Who should decide what medical care a person receives? Should it be patients and their families, supported by doctors and other clinicians, using guidelines developed by the leading experts in the field based on the most current scientific knowledge and treatment practice? Or does the Constitution permit lawmakers to place themselves, and courts, in the middle of some of the most complex and intimate decisions people will make in their lives?

The case, United States v. Skrmetti , has been brought by the Biden administration to challenge a ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming care for adolescents that all major American medical organizations support. Tennessee is one of some two dozen states that have passed laws limiting gender-affirming care for young people. The appeal argues that these bans are an unconstitutional form of sex discrimination: They forbid long-used treatments for transgender adolescents that are also given to children who are not transgender for different reasons.

The Tennessee law, called the Protecting Children From Gender Mutilation Act, prohibits the use of puberty-blocking medications for transgender adolescents, for example, but permits them for children who go into puberty at an early age. It bans the use of sex hormones like testosterone in transgender adolescents but allows it for other health issues, such as for children assigned male at birth. It bans gender-affirming surgeries for transgender adolescents — such surgeries are extremely rare — but allows similar surgical procedures that affirm the sex a child is assigned at birth, even on infants who are intersex.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 — somewhat surprisingly given its conservative majority — that differential treatment of transgender and gay people is impermissible under civil rights law. “It is impossible,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his decision in that landmark employment discrimination case, “to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Lawyers seeking to overturn gender-affirming-care bans will urge the court to follow the logic of that ruling and declare the Tennessee law and others like it unconstitutional.

Lawyers arguing in favor of these bans have taken a sharply different approach. In a striking echo of the arguments used to challenge medical abortion, they have asserted , against the consensus of the mainstream medical science, that the standard treatments for transgender children are not based in evidence and represent a grave risk to the health and well-being of young people.

This argument has been floating around conservative circles in the United States for some time, and some European government health care systems have embraced it, too, with some limiting access to gender-affirming care for young people, citing doubts about the evidence supporting it. The argument has been supercharged in recent months by an unlikely ally on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean: the British pediatrician Hilary Cass.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .