Once you are skeptical, have knowledge that the internet's information is practically limitless, use triangulation, you are most likely to find the best information available. To be apart of digital culture, you must use these tools at your expense to get the most credible information on the web.

Infotention, as rheingold describes, is a wealth of information that means the death of the credibility of the information. The more information available, the higher chance that a good majority of the information is not credible.

Rheindgold shows the scope of his research, and how if used effectively, it could change the way news is received and operates. Using the tactics discussed and being skeptical will lead to the shaping of more credible news for everyone.

In this statement, Rheingold highlights the benefits you get from being skeptical. By triangulating reliable sources, he recieved his credible information via twitter hours before it would have been reported by a credible news source.

Triangulating sources, such as journalists do, is a good way to ensure that the information you are getting is as credible as possible. Triangulating information would 100 percent of the time lead you to not believe what terrorist recruiters are saying, according to the supplemental text.

Another quote that highlights Rheingolds emphasis on being skeptical. The more skeptical you are, the better your information is going to be. Using the interface as a clue but still being skeptical of the information increases your chances of getting the most credible information available to you.

Rheingold states that simply being skeptical is a big first step in getting good information. Searching more than once and knowing that the information you find may not be the most credible is the best way to troubleshoot finding good information.

Rheingold touches on a large part of his argument here, saying "think skeptically, look for an author, and then see what others say about the author." His idea of thinking skeptically encompasses how he looks at the internet, as a place to look for information but never fully believe it without doing your research.

Rheingold, aware of the overwhelming flood of information that is the internet, states that it is the responsibility of the reader now to be aware of the validity of the information they find on the internet. This relates to my secondary text as well as social media plays a large role in recruitment, while if you take a second and look at the information recruiters could send you you would understand how wrong your actions to sign up are.

Rheingold states that you shouldnt believe everything you read online, although you should take the time to crap test it as some things you read online could be true. This relates to my supplementary reading, how terrorists recruit online (and how to stop it) as a little bit of crap detection in the information provided would help analyze what the terrorists are doing and ways to stop it.

"Clearly, the raw volume and velocity of information as well as opportunity for distraction now is unprecedented. But I find the info-overload fears of the past to be instructive in the way they eerily reflect today's moral panics about the putative stupefying effects of the Web, and in the hopeful clue that history conveys-people responded to overload in the past by developing mind tools to elevate the information-handling capacities of literate people."

Very similar to Chris's words in his blog, Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy This is something can be truly related in the response due to effects that surfing the web can have on you, your ideologies and the topics that you may want to research upon using the internet.

"Some people are exploring the use of social media for crap detection about journalism. FairSpin.org's community votes on stories in order for its aggregate judgments to identify opinion disguised as fact, and reflect the degree of political bias detected in stories from both the Left and Right."

In a political sense, many of the sources from organizational websites can result in bias writing towards a certain ideology. This isn't terrible but it can also leave specific facts from one side due to a organization using favoritism in an argument. Which can also be checked for crap detection just because someone is trying to make their group look better than another.

"If you are going to grant credibility to people whose expertise is based on being a professor of something, make sure that assertion is accurate. Don't stop at simply verifying that the claim to be a professor is valid if you are looking for scientific credibility."

Credibility is something that everyone needs to be checked for even if you are a professor. Rheingold slides in that just because someone is a teacher, doctor, professor or something doesn't mean that they're valid 100% of the time about everything.

"Search engines are such powerful magic that we've forgotten how magical they really are. While people stand in line for hours to pay for the privilege of walking around a fake village full of actors posing as magicians in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme park, millions of people use computer and telephone keyboards to utter magical spells-with various degrees of proficiency and success-every day.

The way gathering information back then was reliable mainly because of the fact that you had to read to gather information. Also this was better mainly because of the fact that you had to realize that many books were read over before they were published.

"I'll soon drill down on that "collective intelligence" aspect of credibility testing. The social aspects of critical evaluation can be powerfully useful, but they also can be misleading. Skill at evaluating the quality of collective intelligence is essential to knowing how to take advan- tage of it."

This results in being able to work with peers and other scholars in order to put heads together to find and gather valuable information on a topic. However Rheingold proves this route to be inclusive as to still being able to crap detect by realizing that these sources from your peers may be misleading

"Most people ask themselves whether a detective-like inquiry to verify the answer to a Web search is worth the time. According to researchers Soo Young Rieh and Brian Hilligoss, interviews with twenty-four college stu- dents revealed that they would be willing to compromise certainty about credibility for speed and convenience."

While rheingold provides numbers to his argument of determining how many students ever wonder what sources they are using, there are many students who actually take the route of using sites like google scholar to find their sources which is most cases is better than using a normal cite.

"A study in 2010 by Eszter Hargittai, Lindsay Fullerton, Ericka Menchen-Tre- vino, and Kristin Yates Thomas, found that students use search engines as a parameter of trustworthiness. As long as a site is toward the top of a search engine's listings, many of this study's subjects considered it credible."

Rheingold is backing up his argument with supporting sources from studies in the past. This is very believable even today as students just believe that since a source is at the top of the page when they use the search engine, they deem credible because they believe if it wasn't there would be someone to take it down.

"Treat a site's design not as validation of credibility but instead as one possible clue (along with grammatical errors, suspicious sources or lack thereof, and other people's negative opinions of the site) that could convince you to lower your evaluation of the site's credibility."

The ability to Crap detect and being able to read between the lines is something should be able to do. Rheingold argues that you should not just use website aesthetics as way to find credibility. nevertheless he says it can help as way to see if the article has grammatical errors, suspicious or lack of sources to help you determine where the site stands.

"To show her what I meant, I typed in the name of the civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. I knew that near the top of the first page of results from most search engines is a link to a site titled "Martin Luther King Jr.: A True Historical Examination."1 It doesn't take long to see that this "true historical examination" presents King as a disreputable character."

More strong evidence as to support Rheingold's argument. If you were to look this up, it is in face very true that you will find a website that actually talks down on Martin Luther King. This is what Rheingold supports as a crap source to prove that the internet can be a mysterious place.

"The first time I saw my daughter use a search engine to research home-work, I explained that in the olden days, you gathered information by going to the library for a book or magazine article. You might disagree with a library book, but you could be somewhat confident that someone checked the author's claims about facts before the book was published."

This is the main argument that Rheingold is trying to make. He explains that reading a book to gather information is more fruitful than gathering it from the internet (also relate-able to Chris's writing due to digital redlining). This is true because of the simple fact that if you click and link and use that information from said website, there is a possibility that you are using a "crap" source. This source is something that can be downplayed as something that may seem true but to find credibility within you must at least look at the author, the one whole typed it.

Aural focuses on sound. I did not know silence was in this category. I find that interesting. I can explain how in the video there was silence as one example of aural.

The most important thing I got from this is linguistic mainly focuses on word choice. I can remember that by thinking of the word language. I got an idea how I can incorporate this into the response.

Multimodal is described here well. Can I elaborate more? Will this go into depth. I feel that with more examples, my point can be thoroughly explained.

I appreciate when authors use multimodal text because it keeps me interested.

Before this class, I didn't take advantage of using Multimodal when completing online assignments.

Initially I thought the word "text" just meant a group of words to form either a sentence, paragraph or essay.

Gestural mode is exactly what it sounds like. When giving a speech this is an important feature. I could give an example of how when I was giving a speech, my facial expressions and hand gestures and body language came into play.

Website page could be an example of how visual elements enhance the website as a whole and catches the attention of others.

Visual is pretty much what the name says. It is what you see. I love the quote a picture is worth 1000 words because including pictures into work helps 10 times better than just trying to describe it.

The different modes are listed. How can I incorporate the modes into my response and explain further? Aural is the one I always seem to struggle with remembering.

There are many ways that modes work. I can explain and include examples in my response.

The video is funny with the words at the bottom. The video depicted uses the modes of communication. Visual of course is one, gestural is one and sound is one of course.

The video is funny with the words at the bottom. The video depicted uses the modes of communication. Visual of course is one, gestural is one and sound is one of course.

The way the website is organized it allows for the reader to veer off and see other related topics. That is where Spacial mode comes into play.

The way the website is organized it allows for the reader to veer off and see other related topics. That is where Spacial mode comes into play.

Sign language would be a gestural form of communication. I think this is interesting.

Sign language would be a gestural form of communication. I think this is interesting.

Ironically they added 3 articles that corresponds to the article I'm reading an annotating.

As I stated in a previous annotation, this is true. Although, I don't search inappropriate content, those who do may receive ads of that content in a setting with many others which would be taboo.

Rheingold stated that each engines such as Google, Yahoo and Bing use data from our social media accounts in order to put sponsored ads such as links in videos on the website we are viewing. I believe Rheingold and Dr Kosinski because I'm no stranger to social media and I have seen for myself that after I search something I start seeing ads for that product or content.

Rheingold believes that the best crap detection is when you make 3 different advanced searches to check if the information you're receiving is valid. The researchers have done this with this study, per the author of this article.

This seems reliable, as they did tell the likelihood of the AI being able to detect the sexual preference of someone outside of the study group they chose.

When a reader read this article, they should also do an advanced search on the researchers of this study. This will give much needed understanding why they may have chose this study rather than another, and if their statistics are reliable to use. Rheingold believes this is the best way to find out the intentions of the author.

In order to know if this is true or not, the people doing the research have to be bias when choosing their study group and have prior knowledge of their sexual preference in order to determine whether this machine can actually point out the sexual orientation. The researchers can't be helpful to the machine by giving it hints, that would defeat the purpose.

Rheingold stated that all information isn't valuable information. Although, Michal and Yilun made suggestions on this machine's ability, we have to dig deeper to know if they're inferring this using bias assumptions.

This can be considered Crap depending on what the machine is said to conclude about a person or group of people.

Without even noticing what the actual use of the cameras are used for on the streets, we now learn that they are used for much more than catching crimes and traffic violators. Rheingold said, "machines publish information so rapidly".

Without even noticing what the actual use of the cameras are used for on the streets, we now learn that they are used for much more than catching crimes and traffic violators. Rheingold said, "machines publish information so rapidly".