Mata 1

Kaitlyn Mata

T. Briones

English 1302.261

27 March 2024

Internet Connection

The last three decades have been revolutionary for the way of modern communication.

From the pager, to the computer, to the modern day iPhone, there has never been an easier way to

communicate with individuals from anywhere in the world with an internet connection. With this

increase in accessibility, there has also been a rise in the number of relationships formed

primarily or solely on the internet. As a result, researchers argue over not only the validity and

stability of these relationships, but how they impact the people engaging in the relationship in

question. While there are definitely fundamental differences between virtual and face-to-face

friendships, some find that it is easier to talk via a virtual platform. An internet relationship is

absolutely as valid as the relationships formed in person. In addition, the internet use can

enhance experiences with existing relationships and provide accessibility to knowledge faster

than ever.

In his journal “Real Friends: how the Internet can foster friendship,” Adam Briggle

speaks in support of friendships formed on the world wide web. Briggle states that virtual,

written text communication supports honesty. He believes that due to most internet interaction

being through text, this “correspondence acts as a weight to submerge friendships to greater

depths,” in addition to “enhanc[ing] attentiveness to and precision about ones own and ones

friends character” (Briggle 71). Briggle argues of the fidelity one has online, and that a person is

able to “choose and control self-presentation online in ways that [they] could not or would not be
 Mata 2

disposed to in offline contexts” (Briggle 72). Also, there is not just fidelity in the ways those on

the internet present themselves, but who they present to. People in public, real life settings often

have no choice as to who they have class with, or see in the hallways daily. Some are forced to

put on “flattery” and “half-truths” in order to keep things civil and friendly (Briggle 75). In an

online setting, users are able to choose exactly who they see and speak to. A person is not forced

to interact with any person they do not feel comfortable with to say “excuse me” in a hallway.

In response to Briggle, authors Barbro Fröding and Martin Peterson wrote the article

“Why virtual friendship is no genuine friendship.” Fröding and Peterson use a modern reading of

Aristotle’s theory of friendships to back up their claim that a “traditional friendship” is the only

kind of “genuine friendship” as it involves substantial face-to-face interaction. They view virtual

relationships as less than according to Aristotle’s theory, which states that friendship must be

reciprocal, recognized, and consist of two individuals of “equal standing.” After examining this

theory, they deduced that a strictly online friendship is what “Aristotle might have described as a

lower and less valuable form of social exchange” (Fröding & Peterson 201). But Aristotle’s

theory is not the end-all-be-all defining factor of friendship. Sofia Kaliarnta wrote her article

“Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships…” to dispute Fröding and

Peterson’s generalization. Kaliarnta refers to a constructed example that Fröding and Peterson

put in their article. They present two friends, Alice and Betty, who had been online friends for

some time. Alice wanted to meet in person, but Betty was more hesitant. This was due to the fact

that Betty was disabled and had not disclosed this information on her online profile. While the

previous authors see this as a flaw in online friendship, this is actually a positive factor. Starting

interaction online gives everybody the opportunity to “socialize and express themselves without

being defined by their handicap, ethnicity or social status” (Kaliarnta 70). Furthermore, the
 Mata 3

Aristotlian definition of friendship is too narrow, created by a person who lived over two

thousand years ago. Times change, and there will always be new forms of communicating with

each other, and a relationship should not be confined to an old rhetoric.

Some researchers have sought out scientific methods of analyzing internet relationships.

In Asma Butt’s study, “University students’ preference regarding social media content…,” the

amount of internet usage, including social media, was examined Taking place at the University

of the Punjab in Lahore, Pakistan, a sample of 320 university students were surveyed for this

study. It was found that 35.9% of those questioned spent over five hours on the internet daily,

and an additional 33.5% use it between three and five hours a day (Butt 242). While these

numbers may sound alarm bells to those concerned about an internet addiction epidemic, it is

worth noting that these are university students. Most universities today have completely gotten

rid of the physical medium of paper, with assignments now being mostly digital. Moreover,

information access has never been easier with the help of online tools. All students need to do is

search a question, and they are able to receive answers from a multitude of sources within

seconds. Compared to the days of scouring libraries, that is a significant time improvement,

especially for those in a time crunch. This is backed up by Butt’s research, which shows that

40.8% of the sample students use the internet for information searching “sometimes,” and over

50% using the internet for this “most of the time.” The study also found that 25.4% of those

tested use the social media platform Facebook to keep in touch with old friends “sometimes,”

and 47.9% doing this “most of the time.” Plus, 42.3% of students also say that they use Facebook

to keep in contact with others in their classes (Butt 246). The study concludes that internet use is

more prevalent than ever, and describes it as “an important tool for training the new generation”

(Butt 248).
 Mata 4

As with all complex topics, balance is necessary in order for positive results. Authors

Samuel Hardman Taylor, Pengfei Zhao, and Natalya N. Bazarova argue for the “duality of social

media effects” in our existing relationships (Taylor, et al 1). It was shown that using technology

in our close social relationships follows the pattern of “media multiplexity,” which is the positive

association between the amount of media used and the relational closeness (Taylor, et al 2). The

usage of multiple social networks in close relationships offer a sense of security as a result from

the availability of a person’s partner. With media multiplexity, relationships are given brand new

opportunities to connect with each other. Couples are able to display their relationships for others

to see. Status updates, dedicated posts, and new pictures are some ways to show affection in the

modern setting. In fact, studies have revealed that “having an accurate relationship status and

uploading couple photos” are associated with happier and healthier relationships (Taylor, et al 2).

In recent history, there has been “a dramatic increase in the number of youths using the

Internet” (Smahel, et al. 381), and researchers are still debating whether the effects of this

increase will be for the better or worse of the future generations. Some scholars argue that

“​​spending more time online [is] related to increased risk of Internet addiction” (Smahel, et al.

381), or that the “there is a [...] causal explanation that Internet addiction and preference for

online communication conditions young people’s tendency to seek friendship from people met

online” (Smahel, et al. 381). But this problem is not necessarily black and white, so instead of

going against internet communication, we need to advocate for the “duality of social media

effects in close relationships” (Taylor, et al). As the world changes and keeps advancing, the

ways in which we communicate are going to advance as well. Expecting one form of

communication to be less “valid” or “legitimate” than the other is dangerous rhetoric. The

internet does not have to be this big, bad, unknown force. It helps form new relationships from a
 Mata 5

clean slate, enhances existing relations, and is more accessible than any other form of media in

than ever before. Naysayers need to start embracing the privilege that they have. The entire

world is at their fingertips in a matter of seconds. It is time to evolve.

 Mata 6

Works Cited

Briggle, Adam. “Real friends: How the internet can foster friendship.” Ethics and Information

Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 71–79,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-008-9160-z.

Butt, Asma. “University Students’ preference regarding social media content, internet usage and

online friendship patterns.” Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, vol. 15, no.

2, 26 Aug. 2020, pp. 239–249, https://doi.org/10.1108/aaouj-01-2020-0002.

Di Gennaro, Corinna, and William H. Dutton. “Reconfiguring friendships: Social relationships

and the internet.” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 10, no. 5, Oct. 2007,

pp. 591–618, https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701657949.

Fröding, Barbro, and Martin Peterson. “Why virtual friendship is no genuine friendship.” Ethics

and Information Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, 6 Jan. 2012, pp. 201–207,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-011-9284-4.

Kaliarnta, S. (2016). Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: A

critical counterview. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 65–79.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-016-9384-2

Smahel, David, et al. “Associations between online friendship and internet addiction among

adolescents and emerging adults.” Developmental Psychology, vol. 48, no. 2, 1 Mar.

2012, pp. 381–388, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027025.

 Mata 7

Taylor, Samuel Hardman, et al. “Social Media and close relationships: A puzzle of connection

and disconnection.” Current Opinion in Psychology, vol. 45, June 2022, p. 101292,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.12.004.