Geolocation should be something one has to opt in for as opposed to know they must turn off that setting. Minors that end up in internet chats where they share pics that they think are innocent and safe to share ie. they are using a fake name, don't realize that their location can be detected in their photo. This is makes kids are greater target for pedophiles. Many parents are not knowledgeable enough about technology to realize the risk their children may be exposed to.

This is such a good point. We have turned google into a verb, not just a noun and we trust that verb to provide us with truth and good information. Even as a parent, I have often said to my kids to "just google it" when I don't know the answer to something and it doesn't occur to me to check the information they find from the search engine. There is just enough truth and accuracy to make us complacent in critical thinking.

I find it interesting that the word beautiful primarily brings up images of scantily clad Caucasian women. This speaks so loudly about racism, the fact that a woman's worth is still seen as being her body (not mind etc.) and sexually available. Whether this is due to the design of the algorithm or the popularity of searches, it is disturbing.

How can we tell what software or platform is used such as for this historical site? https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/secret-annex/

What an excellent tool for changing how we educate children. Communicating information with various forms of media is so much more interesting than just having students read a textbook or text only essay. When kids are engaged in learning they perform so much better and learn more, which ultimately benefits society since one day they will be in charge.

This is such an important point. Donald Trump did such an excellent job speaking at a level a lay person could understand when downplaying the seriousness of the Covid-19 virus thus undermining the scientific and medical community voices, that many Americans are refusing to vaccinate. This puts the world at risk for future variants that might be much worse than the ones we have now. More academics simplifying knowledge will help stem the tide of fake news, political propaganda and truly harmful misinformation.

I agree with this. Understanding academic research can be very difficult, especially those that include statistical analysis and if you aren't a student or working in academia it is nearly impossible to access academic information since many academic writings require an expensive purchase or subscription to access the information.

This is an excellent idea and in fact I took this course to learn new computing skills that I can apply to my future scientific work. However, I did find making the beginning of my blog to be frustrating and confusing and had it not been a course requirement I probably would have abandoned it. It was far less inuitive than I expected and at one point I deleted everything and started over. Thankfully high schools are teaching more of these skills now, but I think there should be more basic computing courses in university aimed at those not studying computer science but requiring computing skills to enhance their contribution to academia.

I agree wholeheartedly and I think one of the greatest impacts is in developing countries. Free academia in humanities, science, math and computing is readily accessible to billions of people. Kahn Academy is one such resource. Access to education around the world where illiteracy was often the only option will serve all of us as we go forward into the future.

As one who went to high school prior to the internet I can attest to how much it has changed all aspects of education and life. When we did research and wrote papers we were limited by whatever the local library had in stock and it took hours to sift through books to find the information one was looking for. Now, anyone with an internet connection and a computer can learn about anything. The downside to this change is of course fake news and information that is fabricated, taken from incorrect or non-academic sources. In the days before the world wide web, you could trust the sources you found in books at the library, as they were often vetted by academics and publishers. We now live in an age, I'd describe as, society knowing the most in history about nothing, since not everyone can assess and think critically about the information they find. This is evidenced by how many people get there news from forwarded posts on Facebook.

It may be of interest to some that the first 'computer' used punch cards and tape; it was the Jacquard loom. Here is a link to information about the Jacquard loom and it's influence on computing. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/computinghistory/jacquard.html

I agree with this comment however, the article doesn't take into account the risk that data could be misconstrued or misrepresented. Just like the media can use statistics to highlight parts that support one's view or how science generally only has successful experiments published, there is room in DH for some level of bias in how information is presented.

I suspect that many professors don't have the technological skills to delve into digital humanities. Many professors may have went to university at the dawn of the internet and haven't acquired the skills that easily come through exposure to younger generations. I wonder how many training/ upgrading digital humanities courses are made available and encouraged by the universities that employ them.