How has friendship changed because of the spread of social networking Essay

How has friendship changed because of the spread of social networking are these changes more positive than negative, or have they caused more harm than good - Essay Example When friends are connected through a social media site, it is easy to find out the whereabouts of one another. It is also easy to find out what the other people are up to over the weekends, upcoming events, relationships and their current location. One can have as much time on social media as they want since the only charges that apply are those of internet connections. Friendship has changed from physical meetings and contact, to the internet sites. This means that one does not have to go through the hustle of arranging for a meeting when all the information required can be communicated through web platforms. It is easier and convenient to communicate through social networking because it is done at the convenience of the two parties involved. This element is useful; however, friends lose touch with one another in terms of physical approach. There is no much effort placed in making eye to eye contact with friends. The physical boundary has become independent. Friendship has become casual (Farah web). Friendships and how individuals make friends has changed ever since the invention of social media. Individuals prefer to be in a virtual world where one cannot be known fully but only at the superficial level. Social media has the option of adding individuals as friends. However this definition of friend is an online one. The two people may not even know each other but are friends on Facebook because one of them added the other. This kind of friendship is only superficial and shallow and exists in the virtual world. The two people, who call themselves â€Å"friends†, have no real life experiences (Barett web). On the other hand, social media has led to mistrust and deception among individuals. Some people have put a vetting mechanism for all people who add others as friends to avoid misleading characters in the name of â€Å"friends†. Social media can lead to breaking of good relationships (Parrack). Information

Constitutional Law of the European Union Case Study

Constitutional Law of the European Union - Case Study Example Accordingly. Germany must defend that the decision to restrict its national policy of supporting companies with financial benefits should have been taken by unanimous voting. Article 94 also envisages that there shall be a unanimous decision in respect of directives, regulations and regulations affecting the common market functioning. This is a good defence for Germany to maintain that if national companies are not supported with financial benefits, they will be adversely affected by unhealthy competition from the financially strong companies. Though there are proviso for derogation of these requirements by adopting Qualified Majority Voting, (QMV), the derogation power for overriding the unanimous voting requirements can not used for restricting a single member state from supporting its national companies when there possibilities of similar practices being followed at all member states in some form or other though the commission may not have received complaints.. There is no reason how it will distort competition when such practices likely to be followed by all the member states. Hence a decision of this nature should not be discriminatory towards a single member state alone. ... In the instance case itself, though there were complaints against France and Germany, action is directed at Germany only. Hence the decision is blatantly discriminatory by the abuse of QMV. The EC Treaty itself has provisions for creating interventionist funds to ward off difficulties. Hence Germany can rely on the above defences before the court of justice for cancelling the impugned decision. As Luxembourg Compromise was only a guideline and not statutory until recently without anticipating any such exigency, Germany can argue that this QMV principles must be reviewed so as to prevent vested interests from joining together against a single member state by insisting on unanimous voting. Germany's practice has been open and transparent while other member states are not likely to be so as there is no way of detecting such practices in guise. Germany being singled out alone will result in competition distortion. Moreover the commission does not appear to have followed the procedures giving opportunity to Germany before taking the impugned decision. In case no C-288/962, the court of justice has observed as follows. Plea in law alleging failure to observe the rights of the defence 92 By its first plea in law the German Government complains that the Commission denied it and the Land of Lower Saxony access to the observations, mentioned in section II of the grounds of the contested decision, which had been sent to the Commission, during the administrative procedure, by letters of 31 August 1995, 1 September 1995 and 4 September 1995, by four competitors of Jadekost. 93 According to section II, the letters in question pointed out, in particular, that Jadekost had used the aid granted to win market share from its competitors through sales at below-cost prices.