With recent advances in technology being so prevalent in our daily lives, discussions of their effects on our overall intelligence have become something of a debate in recent years, some even going as far as to call this generation “the dumbest”. Most notably, social media and technologies of a similar nature are claimed by some to be horrifically detrimental to language development and a great hindrance to school and education, specifically in the area of literature. I would argue that social media and other related platforms actually help to increase rhetorical skill while also providing numerous other benefits for people in society overall.
A common argument against the benefits of social media typically begins with providing various Twitter or Facebook posts with frankly awful literacy skills that would shock any language professor unfortunate enough to lay eyes upon it. The argument would then continue to use these abominations of mankind to say “look here, this is the quality of language you get from social media. Does it seem very beneficial to you?” There’s an inherent dishonesty in this sort of argument, both in looking only at the worst of examples and in gauging literacy in a way that simply does not make sense with this sort of literature. Casual, one-off posts that you would see the likes of on Average Joe’s Twitter page would never under any circumstances hold up to the rigorous principles of high level essay writing, and it does not make sense to put Joe up against the same standards. To judge something like a Facebook post, you have to consider other elements about it that would never be considered in traditional forms or writing. Clive Thompson from his Wired piece, ‘The New Literacy’ discusses a rhetorical term called kairos. Kairos is the ability to assess your situation, be it the audience, time of day, topic of discussion, etc., and adapting your tone and technique to fit. Average Joe’s Twitter post is not going to include sources backing up his claim that “the beach is fun”, and it isn’t going to include a warrant for his complex thesis of “smiley face smiley face beach ball smiley face”. Instead, the kairos of Joe, his ability to assess that he is discussing a casual event and change his technique appropriately, is what shows his mastery of language.
	There’s a distinct difference between rhetoric of old and this new-age “facebook” rhetoric that’s significant enough to deserve recognition. In many ways, the rules and guidelines that governed fine rhetoric in the past largely do not apply anymore, and that’s not a bad thing. Language is meant to evolve, and through its evolution we can revolutionize and refine our ways of communicating with one another. A study was performed in 2008, reported by Mizuko Ito Et Al, concerning the effects of digital media on young people. In this report, it was found that these virtual platforms housed an environment for the less socially inclined to have a chance to express themselves. “New media allow[s] for a degree of freedom and autonomy for youth that is less apparent in a classroom setting. Youth respect one another’s authority online, and they are often more motivated to learn from peers than from adults.” I would like to impose a question, is the inclusion of more individuals, specifically more reclusive or awkward individuals, a positive evolution of language? I believe that it is. Giving a voice to more people, more thinkers, more learners, can be a great boost to our growth as a society.
	There has always been opposition to the newest form of entertainment or media. Before the internet, it was television. Before television, it was magazines. Before magazines, it was newspapers. There is always a group screaming and ranting about how this new media will make our society dumber. Previous technologies, however, have turned out to be a great source of information, entertainment, and general socializing. Magazines don’t take all of our time away from family, television doesn’t turn our brains to mush, and social media simply does not make us dumber. To say that is ridiculous. This trend of freaking out about the new thing goes way back through the history of our society. Looking at a piece from 1962, in the U.S. Government’s Foreign Service Journal, several candidates were interviewed to gauge the extent of their knowledge of various topics concerning their country. It’s stated that “most could only guess at the population, labor force, and gross national product of their country.” The act of practicing and memorizing every piece of information we come across is a far and away outdated practice in its entirety. We have access to whatever information we may require at any time. This is such an epic concept that we don’t need to retain knowledge of things that don’t affect us on a daily basis. Looking back at Average Joe, if he were to suddenly be curious about the largest export of Hawaii, he could simply cast his net of questions out into the vast ocean of the internet and find the exact answer he was looking for. That’s what’s different about post-internet society; the way we obtain and retain knowledge has shifted away from rote memorization of absolutely everything to keeping only what you need and gathering what you need when you need it.
	Social media is a technology that’s here to stay. The effects of it are a great benefit in several ways, and has contributed greatly to creating a more interconnected society on this world we live in. This trend has many obvious benefits, but with every new trend comes naysayers who claim it won’t pan out. It happened with Thomas Edison’s lightbulb, it happened with Alexander Bell’s telephone, and it happens today with our world wide web. Yes, Average Joe may be a few strings short of a guitar when it comes to writing  scholarly papers, but his rhetoric is amazingly adept where it matters, and we have the internet to thank for that.