Is this argument valid and sound? Logics?

[.....]

1.Logging onto any type of social network wastes time
2.Time wasted on a social networks distorts your priorities and makes you unproductive
3.Social Networking lowers your productivity (From 1&2)
4.When you create a Facebook account it requires a lot of personal information
5.You’re personal information can be easily accessible to anyone, anywhere
6.Social Networking compromises your privacy (From 3&4)
7.We should strive to only do things that benefit us
8.Social networking negatively affects your life
9.Social Networking is not beneficial for us (From 7&8)
10.Therefore, we shouldn’t be using social networking sites(From 1-9)


Does it make sense? I wrote it myself, Its' not an test question I need the answer for, I just want feedback.

[Naguru]

Philosophically speaking on all these matters, the superior intentions of the individual count a lot. I mean one should not have any ulterior motive behind them. It is good. In any case, please get it vetted by your own mentor or guide.

[Fah King]

the argument is sound, but not valid

7&8 are "value judgements" based on your personal opinion. They are not "truths" from which a valid argument can be constructed. I could argue that there is SOME benefit to lowering productivity or wasting time... reduced stress, less chance of a heart attack, more "pleasure", increased "quality" of life vs less "quantity" of productivity. Compromised privacy is a tougher nut, but lets say from the Governments or the FBI's standpoint there is some benefit to National Security. Terrorists socially network too.

if we "accept" all your argumets as "truth" then the argument is indeed sound... but once we examine the "value" of the individual arguments, some of them are invalid