Teens’ desire for privacy does not undermine their eagerness to participate in public. There’s a big difference between being in public and being public. Teens want to gather in public environments to socialize, but they don’t necessarily want every vocalized expression to be publicized. Y
I agree with the author here. I think it is a great point. Just because teens share so much of themselves online, does not mean they don't want to socialize in public environments as well.
In the same breath, these same parents express frustration when teens wear ill-fitting clothes or skimpy outfits. They have long seen revealing clothing as an indica-tor of teens’ rejection of privacy
The author's analogy between clothing and privacy confuses me. I don't think what teens wear day to day reflects their rejection of privacy.
If you’re not on MySpace, you don’t exist.” What Skyler meant is simply that social acceptance depends on the ability to socialize with one’s peers at the “cool” place. Each cohort of teens has a differ-ent space that it decides is cool
I think this statement is definitely true. I know when I was in middle school a lot of my friends were begging their parents to allow them to have a Facebook (and even a MySpace when we were a lot younger and now I see it with middle schoolers with Instagram. They want to be cool and fit in, and for a lot of them that means social media.
Although she couldn’t physically hang out with her friends after the game ended, she used Facebook to stay connected after the stands had cleared
To me this describes social media perfectly. I think out generation definitely uses it as a resource to stay connected with friends even if they are not actually talking to them. But by being "friends" on social media you feel like you are.
The author makes a great point here. I think many people are obsessed with the internet because they see it as an escape from reality or a distraction for a moment.
We've long regarded the newspaper as a sensible object because it has been such a stable one, but there isrit any logical connection among its many elements: stories from Iraq, box scores from the baseball game, and ads for everything from shoes to real estate all exist side by side in an idiosyncratic bundle. What holds a newspaper together is primarily the cost of paper, ink, and distribution;
I have to agree with the author hear. I always automatically think of a newspaper as a reliable source. But in reality, what makes it different then a reliable source on the internet if it is just printed?
The future presented by the internet is the mass amateurization of publishing and a switch from "Why publish this?" to "Why not?"
I think the author brings up a really good point here. Now, we can literally publish anything we want with the internet with just a click of a button. Although this can be really beneficial, it can also be quite dangerous.
As the discussion continued, it became clearer and clearer that viral media, like art and pornography, lies in the eye of the beholder. No one knew for sure why any given message “turned viral,” thoug
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.
Things will get decided by data-crunching computer algorithms and no human will really be able to understand why.
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.
It's amazing to see how quickly technology is developing to become a part of everything in our lives, including the small things.
Racism and sexism have proven resilient enough to thrive in the digital world. There are many, many examples of this, but let me use statistics, and anecdotes to make the point.
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.
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.
And finding the source becomes more and more important -- finding the good source -- and Twitter is where most journalists now go. It's like the de facto real-time newswire, if you know how to use it, because there is so much on Twitter.
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.
And that's changed now because, as journalists, we interact in real time. We're not in a position where the audience is reacting to news. We're reacting to the audience, and we're actually relying on them. They're helping us find the news. They're helping us figure out what is the best angle to take and what is the stuff that they want to hear. So it's a real-time thing. It's much quicker. It's happening on a constant basis, and the journalist is always playing catch up.
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.
Sometimes you come across a piece of content that is so compelling, you want to use it, you're dying to use it, but you're not 100 percent sure if you can because you don't know if the source is credible. You don't know if it's a scrape. You don't know if it's a re-upload.
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.
Anyone distracted in class doesn’t just lose out on the content of the discussion, they create a sense of permission that opting out is OK, and, worse, a haze of second-hand distraction for their peers.
I think the author is saying that because the distraction of social media are so available to access that it becomes second nature. We think it is okay because we do it so often it just seems normal because we are attached to our phones and social media almost always.
The final realization — the one that firmly tipped me over into the “No devices in class” camp — was this: screens generate distraction in a manner akin to second-hand smoke.
I think this analogy really helps to put into perspective how much our screens really do impact us. I find it amazing that something can do so much damage with out being involved first hand.
People often start multi-tasking because they believe it will help them get more done. Those gains never materialize; instead, efficien
We often view muliti tasking as a skill. However, in the long run it does not help us to succeed any quicker or better off, in reality it does just the opposite.