English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Modern media are instruments of a cross-linked social system. Because everyone is involved, media-associated psychological effects have arisen. Due to the bizarre effects of mediacaused behaviour, authors have discussed the question of the entity of possible newand media-associated symptoms and devised a practical way to approach this question. In summary, the question that arises is whether George Orwell’s literally-formulated hypotheses could clarify the phenomenon of media-associated diseases. Hypothesis Owing to the increasing use of new media tools, such as smartphones and handhelds, and social media networks, bizarre reports of mediaassociated aggressive or self-aggressive behaviour have arisen. These reports are perhaps not only a result of a permanent multitasking-use of the new media tools but also a new entity of media-associated diseases caused by the media tools themselves. Conclusion To check these implications, we propose a stepwise clinical pathway to clarify the question if the phenomenon of media-associated diseases is genuine or only an end result of the increased use of media tools. Introduction Modern media, such as the Internet and mobile phones, are leading irreplaceable instruments of a crosslinked global system. The Internet, which allows people in different parts of the world to exchange information, is accessible everywhere at all times by modern mobile smartphones, which support a wide range of services such as text and multimedia messaging, email, short-range wireless communications (infrared, Bluetooth), business applications, gaming and photography. The use of social networking, including Facebook, Twitter and others, and new media as communication tools has rapidly risen1–6. Nearly everyone in all parts of business and social life are involved in the use of social networking, especially younger clients and peer groups7. Additionally, medical consultation, diagnosis and even treatment are performed with the help of tools such as web-based or network-associated instruments7,8,9. Additionally, disease-specific and self-regulating media communities have arisen within communities that deal with other social or private content4,5,10. The new media usage results to its negative side effects; dramatic and sometimes bizarre reports, including suicides addressed via media platforms, suicidal or aggressive behaviour or misuse of the communication tools have been reported11,12,13. The incredible and uncounted possibilities of these new steadily growing technical innovations may reflect an apparent unlimited progress of human interactions; however, the principles of individuality are increasingly affected by the obligation of permanent accessibility and an overflow of exogenous impulses. The multitasking subject therefore is permanently forced to interact between endogenous and exogenous information. This interaction itself does not represent a ‘quiet process,’ as individual and exogenous impulses are in a steadily open (public) interaction, in which the talkativeness of both sides seems to be a never-ending story in a ‘Twitter/Facebook’ society. The alluring freedom of perfect human interactivity may be much more invasive for further human development than actually imaginable. The question that arises is whether new diseases are genuinely caused by media-associated phenomena and the appropriate way to diagnose these diseases. In 1984, George Orwell described the model of the so-called ‘Thought Police’ (thinkpol in Newspeak), a secret police of Oceania that uncovered and punished thought-crime and thought-criminals by omnipresent surveillance (such as telescreens) to monitor, search and arrest members of society who could potentially challenge the authority and status quo, even if only by thought1.

Media diseases of the never-sleeping brain: Was George Orwell right?