Running head: TIME TO BREAK IT UP
TIME TO BREAK IT UP
English Composition I
Southern New Hampshire University
Informative Essay
"I Co-Founded Facebook. It's Time to Break It Up”
INTRODUCTION
Nobody ever imagined nearly thirty years back, the way how the planet is connected at
present. Social media channels successfully transformed the style used by people to
communicate with each other and deliver better connectivity among the common people
located in different stations. Common people can discuss and express their thoughts, and
share information, ideas, and opinions with a global audience. News headlines, every week
regarding privacy violations, concerns related to mental health, and elective interference
divides the community into two branches. One part considers Facebook as an effective
medium of communication, while the other half considers breaking it up into some new form
or idea. The point of concern has gone so far that it has already become a crucial topic for
conducting a hot debate.
Thesis Statement - "I Co-Founded Facebook. It's Time to Break It Up.” The point of concern
about freedom of speech on Facebook should be restricted for the sake of society.
DISCUSSION
"Chris Hughes" stands up to highlight the fact that although social media channels have
successfully changed the extent and speed at which communication can be spread from one
part of the globe to the other, at the same time transmitting misinformation, extremism, and
hatred can be heavily spread in the 21st century. "Chris Hughes, co-founder of Facebook
supports this fact by saying every week escorts fresh headlines about breaching privacy,
election intervention, or rising cases of derogatory mental health.
Common people have tried to combat the issue by saying for Facebook. They denoted the
fact that it identifies any type of inappropriate content, misinformation, fake accounts, threats,
hate speech, and violence, and immediately takes action against such unfair practices.
Regulations from social media have sparked the debate in a legitimate phone about the
reasonability of the fact to segregate human people between two individual camps and
delivering free speech. The author questions a disparity in understanding regarding the
concept of those who have faith that there must not be any kind of diminution, and people
who trust the fact to have restrictions. That is people supporting the break-up of Facebook
and people not at all supporting the act. People who continuously oppose the regulations
consider social media channels to prioritize free speech above censorship rather than striking
limits (link.gale.com).
Those people who assail the directives and "freedom of speech in various platforms of social
media” would propound that there is not much discretion in the public zone and any online
niche space, since thoughts and ideas can be collaborated and merged within each
circumstance. The claims made by "Chris Hughes" were refuted by the French. He claims
that users of social media can carefully govern their environment, they can block what they
do not want to hear (link.gale.com)."
Irrespective of the support of the common people, Hughes was successful enough to defend
his position. In response to the statement of the people, Hughes was found arguing about
spreading negativity, associated with freedom of speech, allowed by media platforms and
calling for restricting such social media channels or platforms like Facebook, for making the
community a safe place to live in. Thus, avoiding the negativity from society.
He also claims that thousands of common people have already lost their lives, or are being
harmed, either in some way, or the other, as a result of the spread of false information, and
misuse of the social media platforms like Facebook. While Hughes was capable enough to
tap out the hidden fear of using social media platforms but at the same time serve as a sense
of pity. Such a strategy to evoke the emotions of ordinary people falls under the category of
Pathos. According to him, while it is important to figure out and acknowledge the aspects that
frighten ordinary people, Hughes never led the audiences to linger for too long. “He
supported the claim with the internet and social media can connect and foster interactions
and communications with people and points of view in previously unimaginable ways
(link.gale.com).”
Similarly, Facebook is also “responsible for disagreement with the message it conveys, but
to eliminate the offensive behavior associated with the speech (link.gale.com)." The
emotionally strong words delivered by Chris Hughes describe the feeling associated with
hopelessness. He pictures the frightening picture in front of the audience and compels them to
go a bit far, to question the sincerity and tact of the scenario.
While the debate continues between both groups of people, Chris Hughes jumps into
describing and contributing toward logos. He proclaims that his main intention is not to
suppress the freedom of speech due to disagreements and representations of false information
at some point in time, but to reduce and eliminate any offensive behavior aligned with such a
speech. Numerous arguments are there. Some of these are on behalf of Facebook, while
others speak against it. He claims that what is more important is to focus on maintaining
impartiality and fairness. During the time of figuring out both the positives and negatives
associated with any particular situation and debate, it is important to act on behalf of evidence
and grounds. The statement made on his part "Taking all this information into account and
acknowledging the complexities of the subject, decisions regarding the imposition of limits
on social media must strike a balance between the protection and regulation of free speech
(link.gale.com).”
CONCLUSION
In the end, it can be concluded that a lot of things must be learned from Chris Hughes. This is
because various kinds of rhetorical strategies which are used can be employed for any greater
aspects of society to bring something good. What is more important for society is to
experience the division of people, related to any particular topic rather than debating about
the same focus to figure out appropriate strategies to mitigate the occurrence of such a
situation. The primitive motive of the author was to focus on the mental agony and pain that
social media platforms have created in present times. The idea is to use it wisely and make it
an advantageous form of the communicative path.
REFERENCES
Provided
"I Co-Founded Facebook. It's Time to Break It Up." NYTimes.com Video Collection, 9 May
2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/CT585557102/OVIC?u=bal3345&sid=bookmark-OVIC&xid=
6cc2e568. Accessed 1 Sept. 2021.
