Today, social media has become a very common part of life, and it is likely that effective communication and friendships could be impacted as a result of such heavy use. Social media may lead to the success of a friendship or to its detriment, depending on how it is used. The use of social media is likely connected to the overall satisfaction of friends and is worthy to be studied to understand the impact it has in people’s lives. The intrapersonal connections that have been ever more adapted to in the 21st century as technology evolves, have caused controversy as to whether those friendships are true or not. Bloggers, scientists, authors and educators have commented on, and studied, the impact social media has had on the constant growing society.

Copeland (2012) incorporates Aristotle's theory of friendships while arguing the significance friendships hold on the lives of humans. The innovation of technology is perceived to invite new ways of communication and conduits of information. Aristotle’s belief that we are fundamentally social beings and cannot live without the intimacy a friend endows, reveals the arguments around how social media can constitute the outcome and certainty of friendships (p. 2). Adapting to the world of technology, it is crucial to recognize how it has impacted how we make and consider our relationships. Much of the newly formed relationships via the web still develop in many ways similar as one not on the internet. Technological advances have provided, often virtual, unique examinations for the discernment of the capability to engage in social friendships. Zeynep Tufecki (2012) contends the unprecedented form social media has begun to advance the deep-rooted closeness of two equals. The need for proximity that Aristotle defines to be inevitable is aided by Tufecki’s understanding that people find other like-minded individuals to connect with over social media, that they otherwise would bypass (para. 7).

Deresiewicz (2009), a literary critic and opposer to the belief social media can translate to true connection between people, outlines the reasons behind why social networking sites are to blame for falsified friendships. Friendship is “devolving”, true friendship is the face-to-face connectivity between one another (p. 8). The importance of sharing memories and thoughts has changed from being targeted to specific people that share reciprocated emotional connection to a larger mass of people who become one. The phenomenon surrounding being so constantly connected has been articulated to not be what friendship is defined as, but a modern distraction (p. 2). Friendship maintains qualities that are rooted in virtue. Social media has destroyed the nature of friendships and caused them to, rather than show more connectivity and involvement through posts, become abstract and distant to what it has shown to be in history; true friendship was held to be virtuous, now it is consumed by “social sympathy” (p. 4). The problem with allowing to have such universal friendships comes with the cost of the inability to be friends with anyone in particular. Friendships serve no public purpose outside being characteristically a relationship built of modernity (p. 4). Being friends with anyone has been adopted so densely that the classical ideal of a friend has dissolved, a “rare soul mate” no longer takes form in our modern culture (p. 5). In contrast to this, Copeland (2012) sees social media not as a distracter that limits the credibility of a friendship, but another outlet of expression and kinship. Adapting to technology has the ability to shape the perceptions and identities of ourselves, but the rootedness and community has no value when in comparison to a friendship evolving from social media. Friendships lurking on the internet is an apocryphal sense of togetherness.

Malcolm Gladwell (2010) discusses the importance social media has become to modern activism. Social media ignites the powerless to stand up differently than the historical moments of protests and high-risk activism. Gladwell argues social media is great for bringing attention to issues, but does not spread information that exhibits the commitment activism really requires. The “weak-tie” activism that social media allows users to participate in lacks the structure and motivation a real activist group would maintain. Weak ties do not promote revolutionary change; social media allows for the mass broadcasting of information and participation, however it takes a different form and importance that does not revolutionize issues. Zeynep Tufecki (2012) and William Deresiewicz’s (2009) arguments agree with Gladwell’s that social media makes collaboration among others easier than before, the ability to voice concerns and go online to push for change is unprecedented. Turkle (2012) assesses with anecdotes and observations that social media had caused us to lose the ability to engage in actual conversation, much like the argument that is stressed within Gladwell’s article.

Maria Konnikova (2014) uses a more objective, scientific, form of writing on the impact of social media. Konnikova believes that the nature of friendship is being altered due to the use of different media outlets, however human interaction is still highly valued from shared experience. Using Robin Dunbar’s research of the number of people the brain is able to seize, Konnikova uses the Dunbar number to form her argument. The brain is capable of process 150 people, anything more is too complicated. Facebook and Twitter are good for allowing to keep in touch with people that would usually disappear all together, however lack in allowing friends to bond over experiences. The ability to connect with such a large number of people at any given time does not make up for the fact with that, you do not share deep connections you would outside the website, which is vital for true friendships. Face-to-face contact comes with time and investment, making the relationship much more profound and sentiment. Physical touch and expressions are a psychological importance to friendships, communicating a deeper bond. Konnikova uses the scientific backing in her essay, unlike the biased essay’s by Turkle and Tufecki, to express the impact social media has on friendships.

Zeynep Tufecki particularly opposes the speculation that social media is interfering with the ability to connect personally, outside screens and virtual realities. Tufecki sees social media as an outlet to enhance human connectivity. People can converse anytime, anywhere and in ways not possible until recently. Tufecki supports in research, families believe social media augments the contact they have with family, that they connect more frequently and on a deeper level than ever. In contrast to Turkle, Tufecki says those who are walking with their heads down on their phones are not disassociating themselves with what is happening around them, but connecting with people who they deem important. Being so connected, communicating online, is not the same as talking to bots. Those who are bad at face-to-face interaction resort to social media to connect and initiate conversations they would not have otherwise. Tufecki agrees with Turkle that there is a high importance in knowing the value in personal, face-to-face, interactions that needs to be passionately demonstrated, but does not see social media as an outlet to hide or disconnect with reality.

Sherry Turkle’s essay maintains the issue revolving around social connectivity and its effect on human interaction. The research findings suggest that as humans adapt more into the realm of technology, it is easier to rely on different social media outlets or programs to satisfy their craving for compassion. Turkle also conveys that as the internet advances and technology becomes more involved in the daily life of people, it begins to alter our perception of where we derive our self importance from. Being linked so densely with our phones, tablets and computers can create an illusion of friendship without one actually being there. This sort of connection is ironic, you flock to social networks or messaging to eliminate solitude, while detaching from the togetherness that transpires outside the screen. Different from Tufecki’s belief that social media is simply a way to remain in contact without affecting our face-to-face relationships, Turkle provides commentary that it disconnects us more from society. The relationship with technology has become more psychological than physical, according to Turkle. Social media offers a gateway into being heard, consciously or not. Facebook and Twitter feeds offer “automatic listeners”, sometimes with commentary on your say or post, which explains the willingness and comfort in talking to machines which may take place of human interaction. Turkle’s arguments are distinctive in bringing attention to the impact social connectivity has in relation to the psychological impact, and the adaptation of technology into everyday lives.

The question that surrounds the impact social media has on our friendships is clearly, a highly conversed and studied topic as convergence culture rises and the technological phenomenon takes over our culture.