I think that this is very interesting in that I've never really considered these types of actions as "strategies" and "techniques" aiming towards privacy. That being said, I see this type of behavior all the time online (more often in high school), and looking back it's funny seeing how outsiders really had no way of knowing what the messages were referencing.

This is such a stark contrast to the previous description about intimate personal conversations that happen in public, but are still private due to social norms and contexts. Online, especially on social media, mass spread is emphasized and it is assumed that what you are sharing is not private.

It is true that most of the security and privacy settings teens nowadays put on their social media and internet presence revolves around avoiding contact with immediate figures in their lives. Teens worry about their parents or principal seeing what they are doing more so than they worry about the FBI or police.

Even with countless reminders from parents, older siblings, and teachers, many younger kids using social media sometimes forget that anyone can view their material, as they are focused solely on their image within their community and marketing themselves to the audience of their friends and family.

It's pretty obvious that in a world where gossip already circulates like crazy, the speed and extent of spreading would increase once these issues were brought to social media. However, social media does not just broaden the audience of these rumors, it allows for a completely new platform of spread-ability and tools to increase the rumors themselves, not just who is viewing them.

I think this explanation of social media captures the majority of usage in our generation. I know from personal experience that this is something that happens every day - friends posting photos with captions referring to the time they had just spent together. It helps people stay connected to their friends and also show their connection in the community.

Unlike news media which needs constant new information or spins on their stories to keep them relevant, publishers and bloggers online have more wiggle room with keeping stories going and further diving into details and viewpoints.

It really is true how much opportunity the web opens up. Nearly anyone can publish anything they wish with no worries of whether it is too costly as was previously a concern in the newspaper business. I really like that line of making the switch from "Why publish this? to "Why not?" It really gives a sense of the kind of unlimited freedom and self-expression the Internet offers.

I think that this passage is worded well in that it shows the true threat to the old newspaper business. Instead of worrying about competition from competing newspaper sources, businesses should be looking at competition from other outlet sources, namely the Internet. It's interesting that these ideas of something else taking over, of paper becoming "obsolete" is so "impossible to grasp" at this time.

Many memes are notorious for drawing on political references and rallying support for a cause. They are incredibly powerful when used correctly, in the proper context and drawing upon proper issues and ideals. I think it is very important to note that memes have the ability to unify groups of people together, as with the HRC logo for marriage equality. However, memes are only able to do this if the cause is worthy of interest to the audience.

It is true that what makes a meme a meme is keeping to the core image or idea of the original. While anyone can make a meme out of nearly anything, saying anything they wish, it must be relevant and recognizable to the original in order to be considered a proper meme and have a chance to grow.

This statement is very relevant. Memes only flourish and gain momentum if they hit a certain nerve on an audience. That nerve could be a specific joke, a relevant topic, or a unifying experience or thought. Memes must be in tune to the social and cultural aspects of the time.

I think that this is an important part about viral media and memes. This idea of people using viral content to pull attention to their ideas about the world is shown every day on Social Media. Any given day, memes with different captions will circulate sites like Twitter. It is very visible. However, most don't think about the fact that someone is using media they know to work in order to apply their ideas and share them to others by having them think in a new, relatable way about a message they want to share.

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 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.

This comparison between TV and the Internet really shows the difference between the original standard for the Internet as a place of learning and knowledge to the transition to a place of purely entertainment.

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.

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.

With the power of the Internet it may become overwhelming with the amount of people one could reach out to. I think the author is trying to suggest that one find an audience they feel comfortable with and network from there, rather than go overboard and make all the connections that software will suggest, because then it will be too many and not enough who are part of the circle you are trying to network into. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems as if he is saying to only network in your particular community, making sure the audience is who you want to reach out to so that what you are doing is worthwhile.

Participating is so important regardless of what you have to say from the start. The only way you are going to become part of a group is by putting yourself out there and joining in conversation. The same is true for an online community. Your presence must be known.

Again, I like his use of the idea that there is more to everything, social media literacy especially. These are not just 5 singular ideas or suggestions. Success only happens if they are all assessed together and effort is put into each aspect.

I really like this opening. The author really makes you think about all the other factors that go into being social media savvy. It takes a lot more than just the ability to click "post" - it takes a lot of planning, research, attention to detail, effort, and energy.