A great defense of use of the first-person.

reminds me of the move to look at other factors relating to a nation's progress aside from the typical GDP numbers. When assessing progress, data should be analyzed holistically!

Admitting that the system isn't perfect -- I think many people on the Humanities spectrum feel this way often. We can't look at everything although there is a right and wrong answer.

Interpretation is loose or decided by Congress and the courts? Interesting add-in here.

Maybe there's a bit of trust in allowing the person who is in charge of the project to set their own guidelines and police themselves.

Even when we think we are fundamentally protected by laws, there are loopholes created. But are they really loopholes Many of us consent to our information being taken for advertisements and research simply because we can't access all of the information on the Net without doing so. Or sometimes we just press "Agree to the Terms & Services" without reading them...

Wish more people had this in mind when they entered either a physical or virtual community!

This statement really surprised me. The Internet has been around for so long, some people no longer see it as a way of starting a grassroots movement. However, considering the ease of sharing information, it makes sense that these political movements would be hastened. At the same time, how do we compare this very active role in the political sphere (printing copies, distributing paper, talking to one another about it) as Hughes describes to the 21st century's "clicktivism," where we simply share disappointing news articles on Facebook timelines? How do we better mobilize ourselves using the Internet? How do we use our disenchantments to work for us, and not against us?

There's such a desperate hopefulness in this. We know utopias can't and don't exist without major faults. The best thing we can do is try our best to live the most happy and least ecologically damaging life.

It's important to be aware of the community's demographics.

The "eyewitness reporter" reminds me of being told now to take a video whenever someone is being interrogated by police or being arrested to ensure things don't get out of hand. From here, if there's something important to publish, it can be posted all over the Internet and shared around the world to promote our ideals of justice and ensure our system works to protect us, not harm us. This is a grassroots-type movement.

So striking. To enter into a scientific conversation or to be a member of this scientific community, you are behind the times if not on the Internet. Your work may be impeccable but like any scholar, you should involve yourself in a larger community of critics to determine the validity of your research. I think this ties in nicely to the objectives of this course.

Internet for enjoyment was frowned upon then whereas internet for serious research seems to occur much less frequently now.

Was just recently talking to an older coworker about this, in the context of political discourse -- she said she thinks that younger people need to put down their phones. Not because of surface-level social media usage but because our phones deliver so much unnecessary or skewed news to our brains and we consume all of it, whether we agree or disagree with what we're seeing. Pop-up alerts by certain media outlets definitely come up on my phone, and depending on who you are and what news outlet you choose to have notify you, the information is usually very biased as can be seen in just the headline alone.

I think this is a really important statement -- how do outsiders view a community? Whether virtual or physical, there will likely always be outsiders who either do not understand the relationship or do not approve of it.

I know many English majors have been engaged with the helpful guide, "They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing." This is such a helpful tool to ensure that our arguments consider all those scholars and academic peers who have published before us. No matter what the argument, it is always made more effective when it considers other people's research and opinions.

It's easy to blame millennials or the Internet for deteriorating the idea of "community," yet the "automobilecentric, suburban, fast-food, shopping-mall" lifestyle is hardly blamed as the culprit these days.

Links back to the last section's frustration with the medical system -- having the knowledge yourself is very powerful.

Ease of self-publication in the digital age.

Does turning to the Internet decrease our ability to turn to actual friends? Maybe it becomes so easy to get wrapped up in the virtual world that it becomes impossible to explain how we feel out loud, with our actual voices.