Biopsychosocial beings or biopsycho-technological beings?

The mental constructions that are developed in ecosystems of experiences, whether virtual or earthly, are becoming increasingly important in life scenarios. Social commitments understood as the rules and labels of interaction, have evolved into other increasingly exploited spaces. The confluence in the network has consequently evolved in the virtualization of behaviors and experiences that little by little, managing truly discreet times, are tattooed in society with new habits, spaces, and values.

This situation frames us in a context in which communicative paradigms become omnipresent and generational influence interacts with new actors who have somehow invaded those spaces of interaction, be they temporary or cuasi eternal. It is understandable then, that we are going through an era in which the creators of digital content on social networks lead the lists of preferences of consumption for Millennials, Z, and Alpha, and that this consumption, according to the content itself viralized, can generate addictive tendencies.

All this with its own rules and conditions. Increasingly absent from an inclusive legal framework that regulates and protects both creators and consumers. The real dilemma also occurs in the meeting of positions and parties that allege that the definition and guidelines of these content schemes cannot be framed in the lines of thought of some decision-makers that may be influenced by codes of and contexts that do not satisfy everyone. social strata or segments of consumers-creators. Some terms to take into account in this construction of shared rules for the regulation, if possible, of content and its impact would be: ethics, discursive lines, message, and regulatory schemes, among others.

Even so, a scenario of coexistence of discourses and freedoms is presented that flirts all the time with those of others, and that has undoubtedly provoked/encouraged positions of rejection, hatred, disorders, and changes in attitudes. This complex process, also paradoxical, within socialization itself and its frameworks is co-created and co-developed within Social Networks. This is the medium in which young people project their identity, desired or real, according to their precepts and consideration. This enhanced self-image becomes its representation that, far from being a retaining wall or playing a role of protection against bad influences or just plain influences, takes into consideration, possibly as rarely in other life scenarios, the opinions of others.

It would also be necessary to bring to debate the true intentions of exposure based on upbringing and access from an early age to devices and technologies that have become manipulators, rather than facilitators, of the act of socializing. According to many approaches, during adolescence and early adulthood, the need to belong to a group or groups is recreated in the imaginary of individual insertion, social networks being that connecting tool that facilitates from algorithms of their software, the possibility of connecting people to people and people to their affiliations. This access becomes an upward spiral in which the need for contact on the one hand and the desire for feedback on the other, introduce an element that may or may not affect people more deeply: techno-addiction in social networks.

And it is that social networks have strongly impacted the very essence of social relations in the contemporary world. Many researchers have developed different models to help make sense of the trends seen across platforms influencing people's media choices and level of engagement. The most popular case studies can be seen in the very applicability of Facebook-Meta in the representativeness that it is having as a life scenario for users. People indeed find it extremely interesting to have access to a multitude of features that allow them to customize their experience to their liking. The mere exercise of planning and planting oneself, understanding that the development of the mind itself cannot accept that users do not build, as they do with intangible and personality attributes, their features, and corporeal tonalities. It is perfectly understandable. However, should we assess to what extent it is lawful? To what extent is it not a consequence of the development of capitalism itself and its essence of democratic manipulation?

It is at this point that the very persistence of desires invites us to yearn-want-fight for dreams that we know can lacerate us as beings and harm us. According to Berlant (2019), a proprietary term is “Cruel Optimism”. A condition exists despite your recognition of these desires as obstacles in your life. In principle, the influence that this generates in life routines is given in a crescendo that goes almost unnoticed by users until the feeling of helplessness and lack of control for not being able to manage the timings take over consumers, perhaps becoming objects of mundane use. Bringing this principle of "Cruel Optimism" closer to techno-addictions and the use of Social Networks can be somewhat uncomfortable as the development context of the study itself is more geared toward the "audacity of hope" and the disaffection unleashed by groups in the face of the inarticulate representativeness they may feel.

Therefore, before addressing techno-addiction in Social Networks, specifically in Facebook-Meta, it would be vital to establish a more real than clear reading, referring to hyper-connectivity among young people, and how these messages are deconstructed among them, their digital communities, and exchange environments. One question that needs to be asked, however, is whether this process takes place in a situation of vulnerability? Will it be in a situation of social exclusion? Are those patterns equally manifest among young people? Same action vs the same reaction?

Facebook, now Meta with its new brand commitment, where it changes from being a Social Media Company to a Tech Company, with a marked interest in expansion towards virtual environments even in exploration and recreation, is an example of a user case study that could be valid parse. Meanwhile, the social behavior that occurs on its platforms increasingly segments that interaction based on profiles and groups, according to the previously defined consumer profiles.

An exploration of these theories of social networks, their role in the changes observed in recent years, and, more importantly, how they fit into the current situation, can help clarify the development of social relationships that have impacted the interactions of people in its various fronts. In the approach to postmodernity, many solutions and alternatives converge that emerged, not without controversy, but also resulted from a need to break with the already established communication structures. Although one major drawback that cannot be ignored is the different negative aspects that can be manifested, such as cyberbullying, harassment, and invasion of privacy, among others.

If we approach the theory to the effects, according to various authors, of the use of social networks, it is not at all out of context to start the argument, affirming that social networks have extended social interactions beyond mere historically established communication, to become the place to expose experiences, moments and moods. Taking it to a simpler construction of meaning, the very definition of "life". In this ecosystem, you can hang out with your friends, with the class, or with workgroups, under the premise of "being connected". Social networks in their evolution have become more effective in allowing scalable sociability. It is becoming more visual, moving away from the usual oral and textual forms. The visual is a more robust feature within Facebook-Meta and is more present now than in the past. This construction of shared meanings has lightened the vocabulary and its use, adjusted to dimensions of practicality and comfort among psychosocial entities. An example of this can be found in memes, which have represented communicative development through the use of objects, figures, and forms that synthesize expressions, messages, and feelings, improving, it could be said, the level of communication of people. There has been a further extension of this by the additional diversity and dynamism of digital forms. It is worth noting that the digital world is not immaterial, although it can often be online. There is a material side to digital money, digital photography, memes, platforms, or computers. There has been an increase in a wide range of new populations brought about by the advent of digital technologies, which may seem considerably strange at first. Anthropologists have had different roles, one of which emphatically engages with populations to enhance people's understanding of their role and understand the world from their perspective.

Within digital technologies, political anthropology has received great interest as they are often perceived as a significant contributor to modern political transformations. Such perceptions are responsible for the role of Facebook in popular uprisings around the world. Also on whether Trump's election is due in part to the work of organizations like Cambridge Analytics on Facebook and Twitter to influence the outcome.

But how is it that a tool-device-technology created to break communication barriers, mediate between beings and improve reach and even generate empathy among its actors can lacerate the life attitudes of its own consumer segments? Let's perhaps call it the solitary confinement communicated to a phenomenon of retraction that is manifested in such a bubble of thought, where our fears, responses, desires, and complaints, among others, are locked up.

Let us return then to the manifestations that have appeared with the development of new applications within Facebook. A very interesting mix of terms ranging from new empowerment through "mass self-communication" (Castells, 2013), "collective intelligence" (Lévy, 2004), or "intelligent mobs" (Rheingold, 2004). However, these challenges lead us to the implementation of freedoms with their consequent enjoyment. The special debate between the exercise of practicing freedom vs. freedom itself leads us to a specific analysis within social networks, their challenges, diagnoses of addiction, and responsibility in socially defined areas of regulation such as the home and educational institutions. The role of these, and their role.

To what extent can addictive attitudes be prevented with the use of new technologies and specifically in Facebook-Meta? Are the creators themselves capable of defining regulatory guidelines that prevent negative attitudes? Is it in the interest of Tech businesses to participate in the democratization of their own platforms? Everything goes hand in hand with the eternal dilemma: are the endings justified despite the means?

Techno-addiction finds among its ranks of scholars as many detractors as promoters of its term. Not all authors agree that the consumption and use of Social Networks and the contents of their platforms can cause addictive tendencies, even when such consumption is exaggerated. These positions do not identify dependence on technology with addiction to a behavior (Kuss, Griffiths and Pontes, 2017). Despite the lack of agreement regarding the addictive disorders generated by the use of technology, it should be said that the different currents of research identify it as a study matrix, insofar as the use, whether temporary or not, of social networks, unleashes the need to spend more and more time connected. Dependence vs Time of excessive use. We could then approach issues such as abstinence, the desire to quit and not being able to, excessive dedication in terms of time to the content that one shares, the reactions to what others share, FOMO, and lastly, not being able to regulate its use even when you are aware that it can be harmful in our life scenarios (Griffith, 2005).

Let it be said then, that in this ecosystem of exchange and dependencies it is possible to reflect on how the very human essence of consumption allows these new scenarios to be recreated. Listing according to affectation, they are given access to: platforms that condition our routines, relationships with new exchange codes, and threats with new managers of that violence.

All this is also considered the so-called cyberbullying, which has been one of the main problems of the use of Facebook-Meta. A practice of harassment that occurs through the use of different digital technologies affects people psychologically. The background of impunity that is reached in digital ecosystems marks some differences between traditional harassment and the so-called cyber-harassment, such as identity theft, access to constructed identities, or the possibility of acting anonymously. In line with this, the lack of supervision and legal frameworks for both scrutiny and security offer a scenario of impunity in the face of the relative lack of fear among the harassers themselves (Hao Li, Squicciarini, Rajtmajer, Griffin, Miller and Caragea, 2016).

An interesting theoretical approach could be through digital anthropology and its constant use of ethical and normative arguments instead of the mere observation and explanation of the results of changes in technology. Material culture studies can allow for the development of an approach to digital anthropology with as much a focus on how people make things as it is on the way things make people. One can get an understanding of who they are based on a mirror reflection of the material world within which people are not only born but also socialized (Miller, 2018).

Perhaps it would be necessary to understand the dichotomy that is established between the subject, consumption, his universe, the new digital ecosystems, and the encounter with himself in a real way and with his ideal representation (Lewkowicz, 1998).

Surely, shadows more than lights can be seen in the new scenarios-platforms of digital socialization. In a hegemonic struggle that is established on many occasions outside of political powers. At the time, the dictatorship of the proletariat was one of the greatest fears of the established social classes. Would it be fair then to speak of a new dictatorship of the digital masses? Is it possible to regulate-observe-debate about Silicon Valley projects and their risk to freedoms? With so many spaces to discover, such as the metaverse, virtual reality, and augmented reality, it would be foolish not to worry and deal with the mediations that will take place during this legitimation process and the impact on productivity, behavior, and ways of being. Biopsychosocial beings or bio psycho-technological beings?