This Came from Claremont Graduate University ii
and they said

"the term social media technology (SMT) refers to web-based and mobile applications that allow individuals and organizations to create, engage, and sharenew user-generated or existing content, in digital environments through multi-way communication."

This review first discusses the origins of social media technology and its rapid infiltration into our social norms and the social outcast in society here today which use s this type of communication. Then they document the different ways SMT is currently used in higher education and the extent the use of social media. Next, we examine what past research tells us about the impact of SMT within higher education, particularly the effects on student development and identity, learning, and other academic and social outcomes. Then we offer some ideas for how SMT might be utilized to enhance student success. We then address the challenges and potential perils SMT presents as it becomes more and more prevalent within colleges and among college students. We end with a discussion of the implications of SMT for higher education.

People looking at screens to go to social media , however they can't realized the society here today. People can't realize what is happening the outer world. Such as the oil spill, gas leak, great depression from other countries and etc.

Over the last decade, and particularly in the last five or six years, Social Media has transformed our thinking about our relationships, our connections with and affinity to others, and the influence and persuasive power of online communities on how we think, organize, and act politically. Since the inception of the Internet and integration of email technology into our personal and work lives, our ways of communicating began to change. However, it was not until the creation of social mediainterfaces like Facebook, MySpace, Yahoo, Snapchat, YouTube, Twitter and other similar applications that have we seen such a massive harnessing of the potential of the online connectivity in our everyday lives.

Harvard University, 2011 said that +90% of the college students have Profiles in Facebook.

In 2009, 11% of adults over 30 reported to be engaged online in activities such as blogging. In the same year, 22% of Internet users over 50 reported being engaged on a social networking site (Madden, 2010). Comparatively,younger generations remain by far the greatest beneficiaries and users of SM. Among users 18-29years of age, 86% are actively engaged in social networking (Lenhart et al., 2010) compared to just 61% of users 30-49 years old, 47% of users 50-64 years old, and only 26% of users over 65 years of age (Madden, 2010)

College Age Users in
Palfey and Gasser 2008 and Prensky 2001
Noticed that the ages between 18-29 years old student still used social media and still today
cons i

1. It could be considered discrimination.
Although there are many people who are drug tested in order to have a job, not everyone undergoes testing. By requiring everyone in the lower socioeconomic classes to undergo testing, it could be considered discrimination against the poor based on the assumption that they are a drug user just because they don't make a lot of money.
2. Children receive most of the benefits of welfare.
Up to 80% of the people who are on welfare that can work are already working. Most of those who are not working or are unable to work are children. By requiring drug testing of parents who are on welfare and not receiving direct benefits, there could be a lot of children who won't receive benefits that they may rightly deserve under the law.
3. It deprives people of the human experience.
By limiting what people can or cannot do just to receive a welfare benefit, some may see this as a limitation of the human experience. There is an attitude that the poverty class shouldn't be able to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, or other vices that other income classes can do without any trouble.
One could also argue that there are several cons of drug testing welfare recipients. A few believe that this is purely discrimination against the poor, who most often receive these benefits. They argue that since some people have jobs where they are never drug tested (and are sometimes very highly paid, even) that poor people should not have