Memes aren't a single thought because while the picture may be the same, the words are constantly changing. The picture may even be manipulated, like in the anti smoking commercial that always plays on tv. Memes can be formed and changed to fit any situation in life which makes them so popular.

I constantly notice this. Besides the Super Bowl, everyone hates commercials. People do not really pay attention to them when they come on so advertising companies have switched to placing their product in popular videos. An example is youtube stars drinking certain beverages in their videos or tv show characters using certain household products. It is an extremely smart move because the viewers get the message without really having to pay attention.

While short, this point has a lot deeper meaning. I think that anyone can build themselves up on the web, into an effective communicator and contributor. However, I feel like spreadable media only spreads when it is spread by the right people. You need to have connections before any content you spread can be "viral" and often times, you need to have some sort of reputation to an extent.

I think that this is the definition most people would attribute to "viral" media on the web. Videos become viral on YouTube or Facebook when their message is powerful and/or appealing. Photos on Twitter are the same way, with the funniest, most relatable, powerful messages are those who spread. Whereas messages that are not on the same level in these fields don't have as much of a chance.

This reminds me of memes, tweets, and other things that become globally recognized because of how controversial they are. People feed on the news their friends post which keeps tweets and memes alive.

I think that the strength of a viral message depends more on whether the message fits within the community. It is all about the audience. A meme may not be valuable to one group of people, so it wont be spread, but if a meme is popular in another group, it will be sent and spread rampantly. Both group have the same ability to share the meme, but the importance of the message is just different.

This blurb reminds me of how popular pictures can circulate on twitter. One picture can be interpreted differently on different twitter accounts with different views. For example, the @CommonWhiteGirl twitter account can tweet the same picture as the @MensHumor twitter account, but will have a different caption because they are trying the cater a different audience.

I agree with this statement. So often it's the videos, photos etc. that become popular that you would never expect, however that goes to show that it is all about the audience and those that share.

It seems silly that we have to make a metaphor for everything. Why must we label it? Why can't it just be what it is without us having to make up metaphors and names for it.

This connects with the online threat posted from the frog meme that scared everyone away from school a few weeks ago. It doesn't take much for something to pull a reaction out of unsuspecting people online. People say "not everything on the internet is true" but sometimes we act like it.

It takes two seconds to share something that you find funny, embarrassing, or interesting with your friends. I always thought of something going viral as something that was newsworthy, but now in today's society it could be nothing and people could still be interested.

People these days are so influenced by the culture and media that surrounds them that it affects their ideas and the way they think. Everyone wants and needs to fit in so if the culture around them changes, they change; and this may not be a very good thing.

It is not positive or certain about what makes a viral video, viral. It is hard for people to make videos to know if their video will become popular because they are unsure of if people will like it or share it. You can't go in to making a video and assuming that it will become viral because no one is positive as to how, why or what goes into a video becoming viral.

I completely agree with this statement. I never thought about how something became "viral," I always wondered but wasn't sure how a video of a cat always got so many hits. It makes sense that videos that people enjoy watching or are able to easily find are the ones that become viral. Obviously not everyone is going to enjoy watching the same video but the ones who do share it and like it and then their friends who enjoy it share it and like it and so on.

After reading this, I understand memes a little bit better now. Every human being loves gossip and loves to know information about other people. Memes are this way to get to know information about people, not because they say it right away, but because it is almost like a hidden message. When you see a meme, unless you know the context of the photo, video clip etc. then the meme might not make sense. You then get this burning desire to find out the original information. This is in fact a great marketing or advertising tool, in that sense.

I feel as if this definition is nothing different than a meme itself. I guess the main difference would be that the media would stay in the same state as it originated in. However, I feel like it is impossible for anything to stay the way it was. If people can make fun of it or open it up to new meaning in anyway, they will.

I never thought of something being "viral" to be in a negative connotation. What about the charity challenges like the ALS ice bucket challenge? Having it be a viral event helped the organization, not the industries power complex.

I think memes are so popular in social media and on the web because they are so unpredictable. Anything can turn into a meme even if it doesnt make any sense at all. Memes are also so versatile and are used in thousands of different ways on the web.

I would disagree that the concept of "God" is of great phsychological appeal. When we talk about the concept of "God" we are more or less talking about the concept of religion. Sure there are certain aspects of religion that are of great phsychological appeal such as the community aspect, everlasting life, etc but most aspects of religion do not have great phsychological appeal such as self restraint, service, selflessness, etc.

This is simply not always true. Faith and reason can go hand in hand. A lot of times they help inform each other. Many times reason helps strengthen faith and faith helps strengthen reason.

The idea of something "living on" has been around for a while now. With the help of the Internet, this phrase has been given a whole new meaning. Anything you put online lives on forever, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Sometimes you wish you could just delete something off of everything, but once it's on there its on there forever.

I am guilty of believing a lot of the false "breaking news" incidents that are listed below, unless it is completely outrageous. I guess I'm the gullible audience that tabloids aim for! Next time I see another "breaking news" post or video, I will think twice and consider some of the tips that were listed.

Twitter's verified news accounts automatically pop up on my feed and are where I get most of my credible news. I honestly hate watching the news on tv (probably because it reminds me of old people). Through twitter, I can always keep up with the world events and happenings without torturing myself to watch channel 6 news. I can get the same amount of information in quarter of the time.

Before reading this, I had minor intentions to become a journalists. Now thinking about how much arbitrary text they must look through to find the "good stuff", I am definitely having second thoughts. Also, I wonder how much they money they are prized with once they find that hard-hitting material.

It is interesting to think that human instincts involuntarily work for the media. When someone posts a tweet or Facebook status about an important event, they are not conceiving of who is actually projecting these claims for the world to see. To me, this sounds like another factor that breaks down how the media is so sneaky.

By collaborative effort, the stolen SideKick was found. This collaborate effort was pushed by the internet. It is impressive to see how much the internet can help expand knowledge and information in a way that was not even possible 25 or 30 years ago. If it wasn't for the internet and Evan's webpage, that precious article of a bride-to-be would not have been found.

Because of the internet and the emergence of social media, almost nothing is sacred anymore. This is the main reason why one should be careful of how much information of themselves that they put out on the Web, because almost anyone can access it. Even if someone does not have a social media profile, if their name was googled, there is a very good chance that something would still pop up, maybe due to the type of job, status, felonious records, the people you are associated with, etc. All in all, this article be careful what you do on and off the Web and social medias.

This sentence reminds me of the element of group projects in school. Before, when I was younger and had to do group papers and presentations in my early high school years (before Google docs was introduced and became popular), putting all of the group's work in one place was always a huge task. Either one person had to set up the document/powerpoint and everyone had to email their work to that one person so it could be copy and pasted into one spot, or a flash drive had to circulate within the group so that everyone could put their work on it. Now, with Google docs, collaboration is easier now more than ever. Everyone can work on the same thing at the same time, and Google Docs always automatically saves work.

This a prime example of how the web molds communities. Usually, people will visit a thread to become involved in something, but end up indulging in irrelevant topics that they share. This is a quick and easy way for humans to build bonds with others through the comfort of their homes.

The infamous crashing of a popular site is one of the greatest horrors that plagues the web. Without a site's server being supported by a whole team of workers, it becomes vulnerable to issues such as: lag and crashing. Just as Yogi Berra implied, people will stop putting up with the frustration of inconvenience and move on.

I cannot believe the amount of power that technology has delivered to the fingertips of many. This story already reveals the inability for someone to hide when they are on the lookout. I am sure this occurrence will deter many people from withholding the possession of another in the future.

I have always noticed that google filters the sources that it will give dependent on your personal website settings. Stricter google search settings give you less if not no nitty gritty sources than looser settings. Little did I know that was a part of the filter bubble

This continues to make evident that even though the users of the internet MAKE the internet, we still do not have as much power as we think. This power is in terms control over the how others handle the content we give out as well as the content given to us. This video opened my eyes about search engines and how we as people will see only what these search engines will let us see.

This talk was extremely interesting and eye opening to me. I never truly realized how much power the internet has that it can control the things I see and don't see. I am now going to be observant to the things I am clicking on and the results I see when I use google, which I always do.

As someone interested in pursuing a journalism career, I'm shocked to hear both parts of this sentence. Yahoo is the biggest place for people to get news? While I never expected it to be the New York Times or Time or anything, I was thinking of a place originally meant to give news, like Buzzfeed or maybe Huffington Post - but Yahoo? A search engine, and a subpar one at that? I did some digging and as it turns out, as of 10/1/15, Google News is actually #2. The second part also disturbs me - different people get different things. It sounds unfair - to use a dinosaur of an example, if you and your friend both subscribed to Entertainment Weekly, and were both sent the October issue, your copy may have an interview with Tom Cruise, but your friend's may have a photo spread with the cast of Star Wars. It wouldn't be okay for a print publication to send different things to people who subscribe, so why is it okay online?

Now whatever I look up first is what I'm going to see most and where I am will determine what I even see on the internet. Now I will be questioning if what I looked up was really what I was looking for since I do not have control over it.

It's not right for us to just see what the internet thinks we want to see. Seeing the nasty world is something we need to know about and should not be hidden from it. Knowing about the bad world and what crisis or movements that are going on is something that needs to be known to us.

Now when we search on the internet we do not get to decide what we want to see. We have to depend on the internet to create what it thinks we need to see, it's out our range of control. If we need information about a specific topic we have to depend on the search engine and hope it comes up.

This is very terrifying. Now we have to watch out what we search on the internet and if we are getting the results we actually are looking for. We are controlled on the internet worse than ever.

It is very important to see and understand the views of others in all things, especially politics. It is ignorant to only look at one side of things and that's what news is doing. This tailoring of the news to what the computer thinks we want to see is hurting our knowledge about important national and global issues.

Because of the recent threats, I was checking the news a lot to see updates. I could not find information about it unless I directly Googled "October 5 2015 Philadelphia school threat." I have a News app on my phone and it did not show anything about this very local story that is all over the televised news. There is such a stark difference between the televised news and the digital news, it is astonishing.

I think this is a valid yet sad point he made. People are becoming so self-centered with their news reading and technology is encouraging it and it causes us to miss what news is actually meant to do--keep the public informed about what's happening domestically and globally. We need to go back to the basics with news before it's too late.

This description of the filter bubble makes it sound like a pretty nice place to be. How would you describe your "universe of information" that you're currently living in? what are the different sites in your universe?

there is actually an ongoing lawsuit from the European Union regarding biases in Google's search algorithm: http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-responds-to-european-union-antitrust-charges-1440691150

People need to be exposed to other pieces of information besides what they usually search for. They need to be made aware of everything that is going on in the world and exposed to different view points and made aware of what is outside of their "bubble".

I think that it's unfair that we might be limited to the information that we receive when we search the internet just because of our past searches. People shouldn't be put into categories based on what they search for because everyone searches for different things, that doesn't mean we are what we search for.

I don't know how to feel about the internet knowing everything I search for and every website I go on. At first when it started happening I thought it was pretty cool, but then as time went on and more and more websites had advertisements from my recent online shopping spree, I started to get a little creeped out. How does Google even know where we're located? It's kind of scary to to think that everything you do can be traced, even if you're logged out.

He makes a really good point here and in the statements prior about the importance of ethics in the world of journalism. A good society needs an assortment of information on various topics and with differing viewpoints. Hopefully the "new gatekeepers" are able to learn from the past and develop ethics themselves.

This line is very important. It really portrays the main idea of the talk by showing how this personalization of the web could have potentially negative effects.

Society can't function without a reliable and trustworthy source of information. We need to continue to filter and edit. It is vital to develop genuine sources that produce a dependable flow of information.

I love google but this definitely makes me wonder if they have too much power? They are having a huge impact on the world by deciding what we see and what we don't.

I always thought websites like Facebook and Google were the good guys who were showing us all the information in the world. Part of the appeal of the internet is there's no one filtering what we can and can't see. This is why I am kind of shocked by this. The talk really interesting and eye opening.

The internet has taken a major turn in past few years. Anyone can post anything. One problem with this is that we could be receiving completely false information now that there aren't editors or "gatekeepers."

Sometimes though I feel as if the websites sensor too much. For example, google is able to sensor some information in china that the Chinese government has forbidden their citizens to see. Doesn't this go agains the whole point of the internet? Shouldn't we be able to search for whatever we please?

This connects with the idea about sorting through all of the crap. I think not only do we need to sort out what we think is correct information or not, but we have to sort out if the information really connects with what we are looking for. I like the analogy of food because there are those crappy junk-food like websites that are easier to get to than those strong vegetable like websites.

That's a mix of amazing and terrifying at the same time. Why does google need all of this information? But more importantly, why do they need to do it so secretly?

I already have an idea as to what Zuckerberg is trying to point out. People tend to focus on the little things that are happening in life, aka the squirrel, and blow them to as big of proportion as people who are dying in Africa. This is because the internet has become this vent where people can talk about how their idea is superior to others or to stress that a squirrel dying is more important than the the people in Africa.

This talk is my favorite out of the two videos that we had to watch. I learned that the internet tools that blind us from the outside views and events can be the same tools that can open our eyes to the outside world. It is not necessarily our fault that results are being catered to local likes and needs, but we can to something to open our eyes to different people, sources, types of thinkers, and information. Staying relevant with worldly topics is important, and even with filter bubbles, it is still possible to step out of the comfort zone of only what's going on around you.

In the early stages, the surfing the internet freely gave more access to worldly happenings. Now, you only see what search engine generators want you to see. How can we encourage the search engine and social media companies to give us a more global view of news?

Heavily censored internet bases remind me of how the internet is censored in China and other communist countries. I thought that the upside about having internet access in the US was because there was little censorship. We are a free country with a free democracy, but why are our internet searches filtered as if we are in a communist country? Democracy is definitely affected by this filtering. The less aware Americans are of foreign affairs outside of our element, the less educated decision we will make in our own government systems.

By the internet becoming centralized, easier to use, and catering mostly only to our preferred interests, we as users are put into a comfort zone. We don't usually seek coming out of that comfort zone either; and that in turn blinds us from what is happening in communities other than ours.

No one wants to be responsible for their failure or someone else failure. Guilt is a terrible feeling, and taking on guilt for failing the human race, that would be the worst situation on the planet. Someone who is a genius using their brain, and genius using their feelings and positivity is the one who will/can take responsibility.

This reminds me of back then when women were not allowed to work or they were frowned upon if they had a job. I do believe that women can do just as much as men, but this statistic is mind blowing. I would think women would hold a higher percentage!

This is genuinely so sad to know that the internet and social media are turning into something people fear rather than something people admire. It is a scary thought that the internet is almost taking over the world in the social media aspect.

This is evident in many situations like my mother's computer at work. If she attempts to search or click on anything that is slightly irrelevant than she is instantly blocked from viewing it. Where is the liberty here? If someone is consistently getting their work done and providing a quality service they should not be heavily censored.

This is a major issue seeing that it affects the ability to connect with other nations through the web. Especially with video games, I always see many different servers to choose from to work with where one is living. This is huge limitation on the progression of building peaceful relations with foreign nations.

This is interesting- because of the lack of decision-making for so many internet users, the control will lie more to algorithms than real people.

The thought that soon we won't know reasoning to a lot the decisions in our everyday life is kind of crazy to me. Technology is already so active in our everyday lives, I can't imagine it becoming even more active.

The internet was once seen as a free place where people could do or say whenever they want. It is still somewhat free but some people use it for the wrong reasons and end up hurting people in the process.

Companies can gain information from what you search and what you post. They can gather youre age group, sex, and even IP address. The bad part is that people unknowingly send them information in which the companies gather to suggest other pages and links to you.

is this like when David Weinberger suggests that the solution to too much information is more information?

so do we just ignore violent threats and harassment?

might be referring to this, though FB has since changed their policies: http://fox40.com/2013/04/04/woman-feels-targeted-by-facebook-over-breastfeeding-advocacy-group/#ixzz2PWC4YI92

Recent school shootings and threats can be traced to 4chan posts. I think this article explains why 4chan values anonymity so much: https://digiom.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/moot-on-4chan-and-why-it-works-as-a-meme-factory/

Not terrorist-related, but one unsettling example: http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/A-man-s-fake-Facebook-suicide-post-gets-him-6133231.php "A man's fake suicide post gets him detained"

It's amazing to see how quickly technology is developing to become a part of everything in our lives, including the small things.

Many people use the digital world as an outlet to express their thoughts and feelings on racism and sexism. There are countless blogs, posts and articles that are written on just these two topics alone. However, the internet and the whole digital world has developed into an outlet for all social problems.

content delivery network... akamai is a site that will store photos and videos for big websites like Facebook -- holding these assets until someone needs them. That way Facebook doesn't have to store so much content on its own servers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies

This statement sticks out particularly. In a world of constantly changing and upgrading technology, who knows what will happen in the future. Many people in today's world fail to learn why and understand how thing's happen. If the world turns into a big robot, crunching data and spitting out numbers, humans will feel no need to learn anything for themselves.

It's interesting to think of the Internet as "less open." Our generation has always known the internet to be open and free to everyone. Our parents were introduced to the idea that it had limitless possibilities and doors to every topic of information. It's weird to think of the Internet becoming a place for smaller online communities that never cross borders and explore the others. But I think that's what the author is trying to say here and in the other articles we have read. It is becoming more centralized, regulated, and personalized rather than staying open, free, and exploratory.

The white hat represents ethical hacking whereas black hat is malicious hacking. The Black Hat Conference, where Jennifer Granick delivered this talk, is a meeting for information security professionals.

I think she might be referring to this: http://entertainment.omgfacts.com/news/10623/Cap-n-Crunch-used-to-include-a-prize-whistle-that-unintentionally-allowed-people-bypass-international-calling-fees-ab963-1

I wonder what these engineers think of the pay-to-read websites for scholarly articles. In terms of making decisions, the unfortunate part of it is that many people get the wrong information, because anyone can post it. Whenever I scroll through my News Feed I tend to see an older family member ranting about something on their Facebook wall, usually accompanied by a link. Nine times out of ten, the link will come from Wikipedia or even The Onion. The former, or course, is something anyone can edit (my brother once changed Abraham Lincoln's birthday to his own), and the latter is just a parody website, which almost nobody over the age of 50 can grasp. What's really worrying, though, is what it may do to the kids who grow up with it. I grew up with dial-up and an AIM account that I never used, and mainly used the computer for PC games. I was taught how to write in script and it was natural to look in the library for information until I was in sixth grade. This new generation is going to grow up doubting almost everything they learn online. While it is good to have a bit of disbelief while learning, it's impossible to learn something sufficiently and simultaneously be fully questioning of it.

seriously: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630182.400-your-smartphones-secrets-could-help-you-bag-a-bank-loan#.VUdo7flViko A company called Cignifi is "studying how mobile data might be used to predict whether people will repay loans and how much money they will save. Their research has found that the time of day people make calls and the sorts of neighbourhoods they are calling can be useful indicators." o_0

Some people would argue these algorithms would be more accurate, less prone to human error and biases. I really like this quote that addresses that point:

There are reasons to think that data-based character judgments are more reasonable. That is only true to a point: Algorithms do not fall from the sky. Algorithms are written by human beings. Even if the facts aren’t biased, design can be, and we could end up with a flawed belief that math is always truth. From http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/using-algorithms-to-determine-character/

Racism and sexism are extremely prevalent in the media and many people have used the internet as an outlet to express their feelings on these, as well as other social problems.

I was confused by cars deciding to run people over. Is this what Granick is referring to? http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you/

I think what the writer is saying here is that sometimes we have to bend the rules a little. Sometimes we have to do anything we can to achieve a goal. However, this could lead to legal issues or other problems.

Can we really trust a computer, to rely on so heavily and to make decisions based off of an algorithm?

This reminds me of when I was in elementary and high school certain websites would be blocked. However, this is on a much larger scale. There are increasing security measures now being taken on the internet to censor what we see and read about online. Many websites will try to protect users by asking them for their age or prompting them to create an account. But in the future will we have to worry about what's being censored and hidden from us?

It makes me uncomfortable to think that the future will be less private. Even today it makes me uncomfortable to think that my address and all of this personal information about me and my family is at the fingertips of anyone in the world due to all of our information being on the internet. Our country has strived for freedom, will what all of our ancestors went through be for nothing once we have no more privacy? How else will people express themselves if the internet is becoming more monitored?

If technology is becoming more advanced and powerful and begins to make decisions for us, how are we supposed to chose things for ourselves? Just because technology can find out so much information on us doesn't mean that it knows us well enough to make decisions for us. We are not computers and we shouldn't be treated as if we are by having technology generate all of this information about us and creating personal internet maps of everything we do.

Who has the right to determine what we can and cannot post on the Internet? Yes the government guards the Internet and websites monitor comments but who is at a loss here? The internet is supposed to be a place where people can go and say what's on their minds but it is starting to drift away from that. Sensitivity is becoming a big deal and people who post offensive posts and comments is what I believe is a big factor in the disappearance of digital freedom.

If the public has no say in a matter, how can it be certain that it is for their interest? Who dubbed people inept to make decisions for themselves? Since people created technology and are programming it, it's as if the people who created the technology decided everyone else's opinions were of no value.

This forewarns the idea of everything being controlled and not able for us to change or challenge. We will have to accept everything as-is and since technology is expanding extremely fast and becoming more and more a part of our daily life, it is dangerous how little control we have over it.

As we discussed in class, this "stream" is becoming the norm on social media as well as the Internet. When you Google something, the results come up as a stream which you can skim over until you find what you want. It's becoming more and more mindless, just like television.

The author is saying that the internet has already drastically changed from what it is today to what it was years ago and at this rate the future the internet will also change a lot. They are saying that the internet will turn more into a television and you will be less active when you are on it.

I like how the author compares the two different versions of the internet. In one version, she talks about how it is a library. It has tons of information on whatever we want, all we have to do is search for the information and it is right there at our finger tips. The other version is comparing the internet to television. Television is much more controlled. Certain shows cannot be allowed on tv because they are too inappropriate or because the government may not want that information getting out. This is the kind of internet, she is talking about, we are heading towards.

I think what the author is getting at here is, with the internet being monitored all of the time, do we really have a voice anymore? Who is the person responsible for telling us we cannot have our freedom of speech on the internet? Is it even a person? The dream of the internet has now changed. It is no longer the dream to have freedom of speech ,necessarily, but to have privacy against those who we do not want seeing our posts

It sounds like the author is discrediting us as a society. We have turned the internet into something it is no longer. We made it another place to hide our thoughts and ideas from others. When it was created it was meant to be a place where you can share them

It is important to stay updated and look at what other similar bloggers are writing about so readers stay interested and see that you are up to date.

This principle is questionable because I do see a number of credible sites with this domain. Although, it probably does help to slightly narrow down the process of identifying spam. Constantly going through motions like this seems grueling.

It is intriguing to conceive how much less work somebody gets done when they are multi-tasking. If all that energy was consistently channeled into one assignment then work would become less stressful. Just get it done! Procrastination is a prevalent trait in MOST humans and it works to destroy our time management skills.

As the semester progresses, students grow more and more comfortable with being able to freely roam the web. They feel as though the professor will never call them out for not paying attention. Clay Shirky's exercise is brilliant and gave her reassurance for new classroom standards.

He is mostly talking about changing about increasing our cognitive diversity that we can change easily but we don't.

At one point he says, "If we don’t like how our tools are giving us a view of the world, we have the power to change / rewire them. We can build better tools so that we have a way to encounter the breadth and creativity of what’s out there on internet." DO we really have this power? Who is the "we"? Who has power in our culture to build / rewire tools? Is it naive to think that changing the tool will change the mindset?

This issue really does just boil down to a lack of diversity. It's sounds pretty simple to say all we need to do to fix this is force diversity. That's a lot easier said than done tough.

This can be related to specific 'community-driven' posts. If I'm scrolling down Twitter, and see a few classmates tweeting at each other about the latest episode of Pretty Little Liars, I am going to have no idea what they are talking about. This is no different than if people who are not that into sports were to look at me and my friends conversing on Twitter about the game. Sure, it is technically 'out there' for all to see, but not meant for all to see.

Regardless if it's MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media outlet, there are hundreds of millions of users. Most people post assuming only their friends will see it. That is true if your account is private. With that being said, social media gives you the opportunity to share your thoughts with the world. Whoever is drawn to your topic can easily find your post. Social media is checked just as often, if not, more often than the actual news.

This is true for people who have personal social networking accounts, rather than a brand or a business. The most popular thing now is the sharing of photos. But, it's done in the same manner and form of professionally produced material. What this means is that professionals and ordinary people are on the same level.

This is true because usually the information I'm sharing only goes to the people I have in my network, not the world (public). This is true for most people, too. The conversations are, usually, limited.

We discussed this in class. User-generated content is a social theory because it is put forth by the people, not one company distributing information. People join together to generate content and put it out into the world, known as media relations. It's social in the aspect of content being commented on or replied to by the people.

I think it's great that he was in it for the justice but I think his emotions got the best of him. If he looked at the situation from a calm and rational perspective he would have probably felt a little more empathy for Sasha.

This is a great point. One could probably argue that this incident caused more harm then good. It must have been somewhat traumatizing for Sasha to have so many people rallying against her at such a young age. We have all probably done stupid things at her age but most of us haven't had a microscope put on them like she did. Also Evan's wife new phone still had her old information.

This is a perfect example of "the mob." People got together via the internet and they decided what was right and wrong. They made up their mind and there was no turning back. They work almost like a judge in a court.

This is impressive and I think it really shows how involved you must be with your audience in order to be successful.

The idea that a single story about a lost cell phone was able to gather one million viewers is incredible. It just goes to show how quick word can travel online and how successful someone can be if they take the right steps (ie. connect with their audience, update often, etc.)

This quote is incredibly ironic, but true. Evan was able to build up an incredible army to stand behind him. However, I'm not sure Sasha knew too much about one's internet presence and therefore didn't think he would be able to rally together so many people on his side.

This passage really hits the nail on the head with what this entire story and class is about. Evan understood how to use the internet and social networks properly in order to yield the best results. His efforts allowed him to grow an audience for the cause, something that would have never happened had he not taken action and found participants to join. It shows the power of the audience and how important it is to react and participate as a reader and writer on the web.

It is crazy how far we have come technologically in order for this to be possible. It's amazing to think about how someone is able to upload a few sentences or photos and circulate their story around the web with just a few clicks.

The power of social media helped "organize without an organization." The technology that we have nowadays, we have the capability to help create posts to go from local to global in short amount of time by liking, sharing, retweeting or reposting to get attention of readers and awareness.

The internet is an amazing invention. With that being said, this quote shows what the cons of the internet world can consist of. When something is sent out, you have to act as if it were being published on the front of the New York Times. The man, Louis, probably hurt the situation more by putting out a threat. Many years ago, there really weren't any ways of proving if something was said. Today, it is published online for all to see. Also, previous things said on the internet can potentially be used to contradict you.

This was honestly the best approach possible for Evan. Instead of acting out of anger, he made use of our technological resources that we have access to. As recent as twenty years ago, if something was lost, you would put a sign on a telephone poll. In today's age, websites are created, tweets and statuses are put out, etc. Evan thought with his head, because going to that "address" would not have ended well for either side.

The tools create a world for us to share our thoughts and ideas on the web. These tools, like sharing on Facebook allow us to show people what/ who were interested in. We should be thanking the tools.

I often times think about huge companies like Coke, Google, or Microsoft and think about how much energy is invested into these huge companies. The attention that companies like these draw in, draw us in because they know how to attract people. They are smart

Bees all work together to achieve certain goals. As a humans we must also work together for the common good of our society.

We survive by communicating and socializing with others. We wouldn't be able to do even basic activities without some socialization.

What we post online can have both extremely positive and negative effects.

It's essential to take into account how the audience may react to something you put on the internet. The audience plays a major part in a story or post. They can shape how others perceive your work in the future and determine your fate as a writer.

Although Evan initiated the search for the phone, he would have never gotten it back without the help of everyone involved on the internet. By creating the website, he created a network of people all trying to help. The first "StolenSidekick" page created a chain reaction of other people researching and working to find Sasha and get the phone back.

We as readers and followers on the Internet underestimate the amount of power we hold. It is incredible how Evan's page had millions of followers and news stations covering it in just 10 days. This shows how once a couple people start talking about something and telling their friends, and their friends telling their friends, something as small as a post about a missing cell phone could turn into a national headline overnight.

It's crazy how the internet can bring so many people together to fight a common enemy. The thought of it is empowering yet alarming at the same time. How people have so much access to your personal information that they are able to find out where you live is a scary thought. But the support that Evan received from people he didn't even know is really special.

This highlights the power of online collaboration. People from around the area got interested in the story and were able to locate her address and even drive by the verify it. This shows that having a strong network is crucial when dealing with a tough issue. A way to have a strong network is to get your friends to share your story, which is exactly what Evan did and is exactly why he got so much publicity and ultimately success.

This part highlights how mob-mentality is prevalent online. People can get all riled up on a just cause (the lost phone that got stolen) and then completely redirect their anger and cause issues. Often times, like this situation, it is full of racism and marginalizing.

When dealing with people on the internet no one ever knows who they are actually dealing with. Because it's just the internet no one really knows who the person is behind the computer screen, who they know, what they are connected to or affiliated with, and how powerful they actually are.

Evan had an army that even he couldn't see how far it reached. I think something so powerful and interesting about the world wide web is that it can connect people from all across the world who come together because they agree on one simple idea or concept. So many people from several different places all came together to help one person.

I think this shows not only the power of group action but also the power of how quickly things travel on the internet. I think for a long time people took for granted and didn't realize the power of the internet and what it is capable of.

An example of this would be the world responding to a graphic or innapropriate post online. This has happened a lot recently and can truly ruin someone's life and reputation if you're being attacked by millions of people online!

What the author means by this is how people are dependent upon technology to stay connected. We depend on one another for news, updates, and information about our personal lives. In a way it is almost addicting. Personally I don't like the idea of having my entire life exposed on the internet, but most people do. It also promotes curiosity and jealousy.

The author is talking about how technology is instantaneous. A tweet or a post can be seen by anyone from around the world. Technology has made the world a much smaller place, uniting people together.

So what does that tell me? I've got to go back now to my three sources and look at what they told me: the one who said the bridge didn't exist, the one who said the bridge wasn't in Hama, and the one guy who said, "Yes, the bridge does exist, but I'm not sure about the water levels."

This would definitely be an example of a "negative effect." Stories can be fabricated and lied about through word of mouth. I would argue that it's just a human problem rather than blaming it on new technology and connection.

Exactly. Computers and new technology aren't changing our perception of truth. Truth is a human trait, computers and new technology is just another platform in which we seek the "truth."

So 60 seconds was how long it took for the physical earthquake to travel. Thirty seconds later news of that earthquake had traveled all around the world, instantly. Everyone in the world, hypothetically, had the potential to know that an earthquake was happening in Managua.

This is unreal. It shows how connected we are today. This is clearly a positive effect of our global connection. I'd be interested in seeing a negative effect from getting information so quick.

interesting that what we see as social media and all for fun is actually used as a source of news for journalists

relates to the shift from streaming media that we have talked about in class. Power is moving to individual people.

I think twitter is a very beneficial tool, and we don't always utilize it to its full ability. I know often I scroll through my timeline looking at just tweets from my friends or parody accounts and only the occasional news source, but in fact it has so much more potential.

Social Media has allowed us to become so much more in touch with current events as a society. We can find out any news, about any subject, any where almost instantly.

Just because something is on the internet does not mean it is true. You never know who can edit a site, where they got their information from or if it is even up to date.

Audiences on social media that may not be as educated online are prone to believe nonsense. This nonsense can sprout up simply from a tweet that goes viral. Anybody is capable of photoshopping something and tweeting it out for the world to see. It is your job as the viewer to do your research before declaring if something is true.

This quote applies especially to our generation. We have this natural instinct when something shocking happens (good or bad) and feel the need to pull out our phone's to record it. We feel as if it is almost our burden to inform those who are missing out. Other's may feel this instinct to show other's they are missing out.

We as a society take for granted how easy it is to access news. When you step back and look at the bigger picture, it is unbelievable to think how quick we get updated on our world. For somebody living nearby Managua to send a tweet out before the earthquake even traveled 30 seconds after, is mind-blowing.

It's crazy how fast news and information spreads. Half a minute was all it took for the whole world to know about the earthquake that was happening. If people weren't so invested in social media and keeping up to date in the world, it could've taken a lot longer for everyone to find out about the quake. Everyone wants to be the first person to post about exciting or dramatic news.

As much as we would like to believe everything we see and read on the internet is true, a lot of times it isn't. It is beneficial that we have people who do all of these fact and source checks before posting a piece of content, just to be sure it is reliable.

It's true that as the internet grows exponentially, so does the bullshit people post. But at the same time, quality information is also shared over the Web and you just need to take time to weed through what is true and what is false; what is fake and what is factual.

It is becoming harder to tell the difference between what is true and what is fake on the internet. We are lucky that we now have the ability to fact check at our fingertips. The information that is available to us is extensive and free and should be used to make sure that what people post about on the internet is accurate before it is shared.

It's mind blowing how much information one can find about a source without looking that deeply. You can Google someone's name or a companie's name and pages of pages of information pop up, whether it be social media or pictures, they're all there and compiled within a fraction of a second.

Though this is true that people can provide feedback instantaneously, sometimes these sources are unreliable and just cause a bunch of their followers to freak out and blow the misinformation out of proportion and retweet it, and then their followers will do the same until the false info has gone viral.

The question is asked, does it exist or does it not (pictures or videos posted on social media sites)? I never realized how much research and digging went into figuring out if what a person posted on a site is real or not; I simply always wondered. Nolan does a great job in showing that he has used google maps and free internet tools to search if something that is posted it true or not.

There are softwares and programs that people can use to alternate and change the way people see a video or picture. Users of social media, like me, constantly question if the picture/video is real or not. We no longer live in a world where we can trust another user. Nolan says that clients worry if a video or picture is which which is sad because it shows that no one can trust anyone on the web any longer.

As a social media user, we have an impulse to post what we are doing, when we are doing it, and who we are with. Social media websites like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram create more pictures and posts for the world to see every second of the day. This is a positive aspect about technology because it opens up the world for people to see when we are thousands of miles away from other people, we have the opportunity to learn and see things outside our everyday life.

They went through so much effort to find the source of the bridge. It almost seems like it would be easier to go back to the way things were documented before the internet. At the same time thought, the internet has been able to connect people like never before. It has too many pros and cons for me to be able to decide if it is useful or distracting.

Are social media sites somewhat replacing the job of the journalist? Are social media sites in competition with journalism?

We now have a way to document everything that is happening in our lives with just the hit of a button. There is no way to delete this information, it is here forever. It is amazing to realize that this has all happened with in 10 years or so and that everyone can see what everyone is doing no matter where in the world we are.

Its interesting to see how far we have come a society. It took him three weeks to get a response back. Most news companies now have a twitter, facebook, or instagram associated with them. They can reply to their audience in seconds. Sometimes the news even uses these websites as sources.

Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it is 100% true. It's always good to check multiple reliable sources.

The Internet is a great source for finding new information. However, we cannot fully rely on computers to do all of our work for us. We must keep researching and investigating and learning.

There is a lot of possibility for interacting with your audience thanks to various social media platforms. A news article can be posted on twitter and have a number of "retweets" and "favorites" and replies almost instantly. You can communicate and respond to anyone anywhere.

I think today when people share things on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook, more often than not false information is being shared more frequently than the real story.

I think one of the bigger problems in today's society is that the audience may have too much control. Since the audience is always so large there is a lot of room for error. People often make up things or share false information.

The job of a journalist is very interesting to me in our present. It seems very complicated to make stories that count when we all as the public including non journalists have the same access to incoming news. In a way, anyone can be a journalist.

It's interesting to try and think back to a time where there weren't many sources of news. Not only was there limited sources, but limited interaction and ability for public to add to the news. I wonder if it's more truthful now or just as skewed.

In this part the speaker is talking about media constantly forming and changing. It is moving at such a rapid progression, not stopping anytime soon!

Today, it is easier to be connected with bigger groups of people. But the bigger the group gets the more complex it is. For example, my facebook group chat for my senior prom bus- the more people who got added in the more difficult it became to agree with on the same thing. It is also easier to get posts to go viral and for anyone to read/see by using tags, hashtags and locations

Nowadays, anyone can take a picture of anything and make it look good. An amateurs photo can actually be better in the sense that "it tells a better story" rather than a professional.

When people are in larger groups, it is less likely that there is a lot of participation in them. A lot of times people feel that there isn't a need to put any effort into a large group because someone else will do that for them. Given that it is hard to work together in large groups (especially for projects) people don't believe it makes sense to contribute when there are "leaders" doing all the work and making all the decisions anyways. I have definitely experienced this in high school and it sucks because even if you take an unassigned leadership role, it is still nice to have other comments and suggestions and people to help with the work.

This is such a true statement. For example, big Facebook groups such as the SJU class of 2019 group or my senior class's group were both pretty big so that only those who wanted to participate were noticed and those who didn't were forgotten about. I remember when everyone tried to plan a senior prank and it was awful. The communication between everyone fell apart because people forget how large and diverse the group is. Just because one person and a select set of friends from the group wants to do something, doesn't mean everyone supports their idea.

This is such a true statement. For example, big Facebook groups such as the SJU class of 2019 group or my senior class's group were both pretty big so that only those who wanted to participate were noticed and those who didn't were forgotten about. I remember when everyone tried to plan a senior prank and it was awful. The communication between everyone fell apart because people forget how large and diverse the group is. Just because one person and a select set of friends from the group wants to do something, doesn't mean everyone supports their idea.

I think it's true that too often in group settings, people forget about the group as a whole and just focus on themselves when trying to solve issues or problems. That's such a narrow-minded and counterproductive way of figuring something out because though their perspective matters, everyone else's perspective matters just as much. People seem to forget that very easily.

I would disagree with this statement. I don't think this is always the case. Sure sometimes multitasking can take away from the task at hand but I don't think it degrades overall efficiency.

This isn't a bad argument but people have to remember distractions aren't always a bad thing. Alot of times they can be a good thing. Some great ideas are born from "distraction." Often times we are distracted by the things that are really important to us. Another thing to consider is sometimes you need to frequently take breaks from a task in order to be totally focused while you are doing the task.

For the parent, it's all about establishing trust with their children. The internet is an amazing thing if it is used in the proper way. Not everyone doesn't care about their privacy while being an active internet user.

While this is the case for many teens, it does not speak on behalf of all of them. It is different for everyone. It is wrong to only listen to the opinion of one person on such a broad spectrum of users.

When dealing with their kids' involvement on the internet, parents are mostly concerned with privacy. Social media, however, has become a very private forum, if that's what you want it to be. Extensive privacy settings and features make popular social networking sites virtually secure and private. Ultimately, it's the teens that have the decision of what they want to share and whom they want to share it to. Parents can even adjust privacy settings for their children if they are under a certain age.

Which, in a way, promotes laziness. Instead of actually going to the game, a teen can have the same experience watching the Snapchat stories posted by friends on his or her phone. They are constantly tapped in, regardless of where they are.

Because of constantly being tapped in to social media, communication between teens has been hindered. The practice of texting someone you're sitting next to has become common. I believe it has had a negative impact on the way we communicate, since a cell phone acts as a wall for someone to hide behind. People would rather communicate via text than in person.

Social media involvement is the key to popularity for teenagers. What's disgusting is that the amount of likes you get on a picture is directly related to how "popular" you are. Teens are constantly connected to their friends online through numerous social networking sites. It has become part of the culture.

With popularity the subjects got misconstrued and taken out of context. Companies took their advertisements too far and the original message was not being received anymore.

The goal of the corporations is to draw attention to the business and attract the culture into buying them. The people then believe that because they're buying that product, they're supporting the cause. Whether or not the company cares about the issue will never be known, but they put up a front to make us think they do. The proof is in the advertising.

What is being said here is that corporations feed off of what's trending on the internet. They change their logos and ad campaigns to reflect the current hot topic and gain notoriety. This ultimately gives their company or brand more attention (whether it be good or bad) and generate more business. It's all about the money.

I think that he means the term "viral" is very broad. The things that are viral are very obvious; it's what's extremely popular and circulating recently on the internet. Anything can be viral on the internet. I don't understand what he finds to be unclear.

I do not agree. I think that making this connection between the two topics make it easier to understand. To me, they are the same thing.

I believe the author is referencing the people that are not involved with media are the ones that are confused? I find it hard to believe, however, these terms make things confusing. Those who are in the marketing, advertising, and media industries should be very familiar with these terms.

This means that the internet will be more like a TV in the sense of just watching what is on it, not having your views expressed or contributed. The conversation will come to an end. It virtually won't exist and there will be only be one distinct voice.

The author is saying that the current global network will shrink drastically in the future is something isn't done. Our communications network will divided. But what could be done to change this?

I think what the author is stating here is that the internet has become less of a forum and more of a niche community. There are only a few major sites that have the most popularity (like Facebook and Pinterest) that others can't compare to. This makes the interent very centralized; dominated by a select few. It also causes it to be less open.

This seems to be what defines hoaxes of the past from hoaxes today -- today there is much more money to be made from clicks -- it's not just for amusement and comedy.

The steps mentioned in this article are very important to take to prevent being scammed and spammed. You can never fully trust a site you are unfamiliar with and think might not be authentic. It's always a good idea to stay cautious on the internet.

I like this idea of responsibility. I like when there is a two sided use for a website. It is important when someone is interested in what viewers have to say.