There is a statement by famous sociologist, Emile Durkheim, that “Man cannot live without attachment to some object which transcends and survives him”. Man needs a social networking life. He needs a network where he can share his thoughts, feelings, etc. Today’s life is so busy that people even don’t get time to say ‘hello’ to their neighbours. Everybody is busy with their own lifestyle. Today, social networking has become online rather than offline. People are more interested to communicate online rather than visiting their places. People feel happy to receive an email rather than hearing a human voice or meeting face to face. It feels as if real relationships are under threat.

Google+, the new social network from the search giant, is only a few months old, but it’s already been declared a big success. So far there have been more than 20 million unique visitors, sharing nearly one billion items every day. Analysts have dubbed it a potential ‘Facebook killer’.
Why do we need yet another social network? The main selling point of Google+ is the way it attempts to mirror the reality of our offline social life. Unlike previous social networks, which have been created from primitive digital platforms – such as list-serves, message boards, blogs and even the Harvard Facebook – Google wants to start from scratch. It wants Google+ to be the first online space that’s based on the enduring habits of human nature.
The design of Google+ reflects this lofty ambition. While Facebook lumps together all of our “friends” in a single feed, Google+ makes it easy to sort contacts into discrete circles, so that colleagues at work and buddies from college get different updates.
The new social network also makes it easier for groups to interact. The Hangout feature, for instance, allows users to communicate in video chats, as if they were sharing an actual physical space. Google+ even requires people to use their real names, instead of the pseudonyms that are so prevalent online.
The hope is that these software tweaks will make the site feel more realistic, more like a dinner party and less like a Listserv.
It’s far too early to say whether or not Google+ will stick around. Personally, I’ve enjoyed my time on the site, largely because the lack of anonymity encourages a less caustic conversation.
But there is good reason to question whether any new technology —even one as well designed as Google+ — can effectively imitate our face-to-face interactions. There’s a long history of such claims, and none of them has panned out.
First there was the telephone, which was supposed to reduce demand for communication in person. The same was said of faxes and then email. In the late 1990s, when dot-com fever was at its peak, many technology enthusiasts predicted that cities would soon become obsolete, since we no longer needed to share sidewalks and cafes. Cheap bandwidth would mean the end of expensive office space.
But the data shows that the opposite has occurred: Cities and face-to-face interactions have become even more valuable. After analysing more than 35,000 different peer-reviewed papers and mapping the location of every co-author, researchers found that scientists located closer together produced papers of significantly higher quality, at least as measured by the number of subsequent citations. In fact, the best research was consistently done when scientists were working within roughly 30 feet of each other — that is, when they didn’t need to interact via screens.
This doesn’t mean that we should stop socialising on the web. But it does suggest that we reconsider the purpose of our online networks. For too long, we’ve imagined technology as a potential substitute for our analog life, as if the phone or Google+ might let us avoid the hassle of getting together in person.
These limitations suggest that the winner of the social network wars won’t be the network that feels the most realistic. Instead of being a substitute for old-fashioned socialising, this network will focus on becoming a better supplement, amplifying the advantages of talking in person.
For years now, we’ve been searching for a technological cure for the inefficiencies of offline interaction. It would be so convenient, after all, if we didn’t have to travel to conferences or commute to the office or meet up with friends. But those inefficiencies are necessary. We can’t fix them because they aren’t broken.
There are many advantages and disadvantages of these social networking sites. The advantage of these networking sites is – people get connected with their friends easily even if they are far away from them. We can stay in touch with our friends and dear ones. We can even share our pictures, videos, etc, with our friends easily. The main drawback of these social networking sites is spending so much time in front of the system can make one’s world internalised, where people like to stick to the chairs rather than going out. This can result in serious health related problems. In a survey it is found that 60% of the people find social networking sites a waste of time…including myself!
The online network is so large that people get absorbed in the virtual world. There is no doubt that social networking sites are replacing real life socialising, but people should always remember that real life is always true and it is safe to have friends and well-wishers in real life rather than in virtual world. Let’s go play some cricket at the sea side…ease up the WhatsApp-ing and get cracking!