Given all the hype about social media and its advantages and opportunities for a “new generation” of technology users one has to wonder – for every positive, there must be a correlating negative right? What is that negative for social media technologies?

The first thought that came to mind was the recent ta-do over Facebook’s Terms of Service changes. Recently Facebook

decided that they were the “owners” of anything, and everything, posted onto the Facebook platform. This included any link, content, information, or other web content that someone posted and shared with other users.

The problem here is that in an effort to try to control the use of private and, I’m assuming, potentially money generating content, they went too far in assuming that just because content is “out there” it means that common respect for copyright and intellectual property rights did not apply. This is not only wildly presumptuous, it is clearly not legal (at least not in my way of thinking, considering I am not a lawyer).

The real problem with this issue, however, is that we’re not focusing on the real problem! The problem we should be focusing on is only now starting to rear its ugly head, and is one much larger than the idea of where the money should flow for property rights litigation. The real problem that social media technology must face is the denigration of what is today an orderly, and hierarchical, system of government and law, and a sense that there are others who are better equiped to make some decisions, even ones that impact our daily lives.

Let me try to break this down in a way that makes sense:

Yesterday, though government and politics could be a frustrating aspect of life, most individuals knew that we had to elect and appoint intelligent and experienced individuals to posts of high government office. Doing this meant that there were some who could analyze and view government from a more holistic point of reference, which would then allow them to make decisions that were, presumably, in the best interests of society as a whole. This process is NOT perfect, and in our country we see the idiocy of the process all the time on the news. But, as one of my college professors used to say “it’s the system I’d rather be in than any other out there”.

Today, society is beginning to believe that not only should government be run “by the people, for the people”, as in representativeness, but that we should have more of a pure democratic system in which EACH of us should have the right to make determinations about government decisions. Have a new bridge that needs funding? Referendum! The people know best how to spend their own money, so why not?

Although this might sound highly democratic and right on the surface, it raises issues that Socrates himself saw centuries ago – although an individual is capable of making highly intellectual and fair decisions, people, as a group, are not so intelligent.

A perfect example of this can be seen in the nature of vigilantism. Individuals are not free to simply take matters into their own hands and to dispense of justice themselves for wrong-doings against them. We have a long-standing legal system that is designed to make matters more fair, and to ensure justice for the innocent, and even on occasion, giving benefit of the doubt to those who may be guilty. What kind of chaos would ensue in this country if we allowed individuals to simply dispense their own justice at will?

A perfect social media example of this type of problem was experienced by one Korean woman, now known widely on the Internet as the “dog poop girl“. The girl was on a public transit system, where her dog “pooped”. Several passengers asked her to clean up after the dog and she refused. Not to let her get by lightly, one passenger took several photos of her and the dog and posted them on the Internet. It wasn’t long before the photo went viral, and soon the girl’s personal information was posted along with the photo. She ended up leaving her University and apologizing several times publicly for the misdeed.

You may personally believe that this girl deserved to be “outed” for her conduct on the transit system, and for basically being rude and inhospitable (not to mention lazy), but does anyone deserve to have their photo posted nationally on the Internet, to be ridiculed, shamed, embarrassed and harassed? If so, where does the line get drawn between that which is acceptable and that which goes to far? And who decides?

The point is social media, for all its benefits, uses and advantages, must not be confused with “fairness for all”. It must not be determined that some day, we can vote on every pot hole fix, tax break consideration, or socially acceptable way of living, or that we have the right to take matters of justice into our own hands. It must be realized that just because we are in the majority, does not mean that we are right! That social and political solutions to our world’s ills will not be best resolved by taking a vote of each and every adult citizen in the land.

From what I see today, 1984 is the least of our worries! Our worries run much deeper than that, and have to do with our own selfish need to be “right” and to believe that we have all the answers and can make the best decisions about our lives. In the case of how to run governments, cities, and the legal system, I’ll be the first to admit that I alone, nor my family, my community nor my countrymen, know what that best thing is – I look to those more intelligent than I, to see the problems from a higher plane, and to make decisions in the interests of all involved.

We must remember that it is not a bad thing to want smart, intelligent individuals in those positions, and not just someone who looks, acts, and talks, like we do. It is time to put our prejudices aside once and for all, and start to think about what real communities are, and what they mean for all of us. In a nutshell, it is time for our societies to put aside selfish needs, and to truly begin to realize that although we may not benefit from everything life has to offer, the collective good is always better than the individual need.