The note indicates that Facebook's algorithms don't merely present material; they also change how people act. This is important for figuring out false information, echo chambers, and why people feel like they're being "spied on." It links directly to the bigger idea of how technology changes democracy and identity.

Zuboff's idea shows that modern capitalism relies on gathering data from users. The strong point here is that people give up their privacy for convenience without realizing that they are helping a global profit structure. It's a new kind of exploitation that looks like ease.

This means that digital apps like Uber and Google Maps are so important that they are viewed like public utilities, even if they are still owned by private companies. This highlights how much power huge digital corporations now have over things we do every day, including getting around and finding our way.

Marwick does not agree with the theory of technological determinism, which says that technology alone creates societal development. With AI, social media, and automation, this is an important reminder today. People often say that technology will "change" society, but it always depends on the choices people make, how easy it is to get to, and the power structures that are in place. Like the printing press needed social movements to be important, current technology needs moral and political direction to make significant development.

This is a very smart point. Marwick explains how Silicon Valley combined the values of the counterculture (freedom, creativity, and collaboration) with business. That similar idea still motivates tech businesses today. For example, Meta, Tesla, and OpenAI all say that their missions are to "change the world." The Californian Ideology makes commercial success a moral virtue, which makes it hard to tell the difference between activism and profit. It reminds us that new ideas don't always mean fairness or progress.

This comment shows how people were hopeful at first that social media and user-generated content would give regular people more influence. Time's "Person of the Year" for 2006 was a symbol of digital democracy since anybody could publish, connect, and be seen. But when you look back, the promise of empowerment hasn't always worked out. People can speak out on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, but algorithms that favor business and influence over real equality control them. What started as a revolution of "you" often transformed into a way to make money by using your data and attention.

This part hit hard because it shows how deep-rooted bias in media shapes public perception. By constantly under-representing or stereotyping certain groups, the media reinforces inequality. Discussing this in class would help students recognize bias, not just in obvious hate speech but in everyday portrayals. De Abreu is essentially saying: to think critically, we must see whose stories are missing—not just who is shown.

De Abreu’s argument here is powerful—schools can’t ignore how much media affects learning, identity, and truth. Media education shouldn’t be optional; it’s as essential as reading or math because students form opinions and make decisions based on what they see online. Teaching media literacy gives students the tools to tell the difference between reliable information and manipulation. It also shifts teachers’ roles from content deliverers to guides in critical reasoning.

This line really captures the heart of media literacy—it’s not about memorizing facts about media, but about questioning what we see and hear. De Abreu emphasizes that without critical thinking, media literacy becomes empty. It reminds me that consuming news or social posts passively makes us more likely to be influenced by bias or misinformation. True literacy means asking who made this, why, and how it’s shaping what I believe.