I happened to catch an item on television featuring Aric Sigman, who was talking about his paper on the ‘biological implications of social networking’, or, as every media appearance has titled it – how social networks are killing us. Online Networks ‘harm health’ in the case of the BBC.

Sadly his paper is behind a paid firewall, so I can only go by what was covered during the television interviews/online reporting, and from his writing available via a quick google search.

Interestingly, one of the major topics that turns up is the TV ‘rots the brain and ruins the body. We should see TV for what it is – the biggest public health threat of our time.’ (writing for The Guardian). He’s also written a book on that topic: Remotely Controlled: How Television is Damaging Our Lives.

As someone who evangelises about the positive effects of social networks and online collaboration, you might expect me to try and dismiss everything he claims, and adhere to the blogging stereotype.

But that’s impossible without being able to look at his work, and sources, in-depth.

And there are certain elements of it which make sense.

For example, he writes about protecting children online requiring real-time parental control, with which I’d agree.  The biggest safeguard from the supposed threat of online predators is not allowing the use of webcams except in public family spaces, for example.

And there’s certainly a wealth of evidence on the topics of television, film and videogame influence on children.  And certainly there are health risks to doing anything to excess, such as spending hours with the TV, PC or game console. Conversely, cutting out all human face-to-face interaction also has an obvious effect on people.

But there are elements of his approach that really, really, bother me.

Firstly, technology always carries a health risk with it – the Industrial Revolution, the ability to move faster than walking speed, the ability to hurtle through the air in a big tin can all carry risks – over time the risks can be reduced, but as a whole we accept them as being something to accommodate or ignore.

So rather than lobby for abstaining from using tools which are way past mass adoption, would it not be more productive to find ways that the benefits could be increased and the risks decreased?

Secondly: Dr Sigman quotes research that shows since 1987 face-to-face interaction has fallen dramatically as electronic media has risen. That much is obvious – but linking that to individuals becoming more isolated seems predicated on the image of the isolated loner on the computer in a dark room.

For example, what effect have different working practices had? Home working for example? Or the increase in geographical moves away from family and friends? Or different family units?

Thirdly: Television and the internet can replace offline social interaction – but can also facilitate it. For many, being able to arrange events via Facebook and Twitter has had a positive effect on social interaction. For example, meeting new people in 175+ cities for Twestival. Or a host of gatherings, unconferences and barcamps.  I wish I could find out how the information was gathered which tells us people spend less time interacting in person since they joined social networks.

It’s interesting that he’s quoted saying:

“”In less than two decades, the number of people saying there is no-one with whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled.”

Really?

Can’t be very important to them, then.

I’ve had fantastic discussions about things incredibly important to me that were only possible by being connected to friends and family via the internet, and if anything, the opportunities for those discussions have multiplied to the extent that I have to limit my time to get things done!

And without access to television or the internet, I’d have far more limited opportunities to interact around common topics.

Lastly: Apparently this could all result in anything from altering the way genes work to cancer, strokes and dementia. Without access to the original material I can only assume that the BBC use of terms like ‘evidence suggests” and ‘he claims’ might mean the link has yet to be conclusively proven.

Don’t give me problems: When he suggests limited the access a child has to television or the internet, it can realistically work. But for many people, the use of a computer for 8 hours a day is part of their career, and no-one would sanction replacing an office of computers with typewriters in the hope people will interact more and be healthier.

Here’s an idea:

Rather than being the problem, maybe social networks (including mobile) are actually the start of the solution.

They encourage communication, collaboration and meeting.

They give rise to events, and enable groups of people to meet quickly and easily.

They allow people to find other individuals with a shared interest and build a community around it.

They replace time spent sedentary in front of a television, which halts discussion, and can be used to encourage activity.

There are lots of examples of people coming together, particularly around sport. Maybe we should be encouraging those?

Bit of a lengthy, ranty post, but if you’ve made it this far – thoughts? comments? Am I the only person who finds a new Event invite every day on Facebook?