Google, in a way, does enable the spread of extremist propaganda, and enabling someone who is mentally vulnerable to read and see certain things may cause them to become obsessed and act irrationally.

This is terrifying!! Its crazy to believe that Google could potentially be enabling the crazy and extremes to become even crazier and more extreme. Sometimes to much knowledge at your disposal is dangerous.

This is an interesting statement since it was previously mentioned that google is pushing for more AI and less human editorial involvement. I understand that AI would make less mistakes, but it also would not be as subjective.

I don't like the wording "most of the time". That is so dangerous because even if something is accurate 99.999% of the time, there is still that small percent of the time that it could be wrong, and all it takes to ruin your credibility is one wrong statement or fact.

I was unaware of how unregulated this feature is. I generally assumed it was factual and had been checked, which is really dangerous on my part.

That is a good point. So often I use time as an excuse for not fact checking, but this article really takes away the option to do that.

I think this is such an excellent point to make. I never think about fact checking things I share before sharing them, but in a way, it is my duty to make sure the information is credible. Once i repost articles or information, I am essentially endorsing them, so if they are false, that is a negative reflection on me.

I feel like I hear this from Trump all the time, and I never know what he means when he says "very credible sources". I hate that people use this term and automatically assume it will justify whatever they are saying. I find something to be less credible when someone says it comes from a credible source, but then fails to name that source.

This quote intrigues me because I have never thought of fake news in this way. I just assumed all fake news was the same and bad, but it is interesting to hear it categorized and differentiated

I do agree with this point. We must have certain sources and people that we completely trust, but again, I do not think it is a bad thing to be picky about who we decide to trust.

I understand the danger of being too skeptical about everything, but in some ways I think that may be better than the alternative. If you trust everything then you overexpose yourself. While it is necessary to recognize what you should and should not trust, I don't think its a bad thing to be hesitant and skeptical before fully buying into what the author is preaching.

I think this is a great goal to have, and definitely necessary. It is so hard to know if you are reading the full truth, so how are we as a society going to be able to be well informed without something like this in place?

I find it disheartening that we have reached a period in time, at which, the truth is no longer as popular or widely believed as a hoax or rumor. How are we ever suppose to really know the truth?

I think it is a near impossible goal to aim to please everyone. In most situations, someone will always be upset, such is the case with safe spaces. And, while yes safe spaces sometimes can be controversial, I believe they are a vital part of society. People need to have a place they can go and feel the freedom to express themselves and interact with others.

I think that a huge difference between student activism today versus student activism in the 60s and 70s has a lot to do with technology. I think in this modern day technological society it affects our actions in such a huge way. I think social media also plays a big role in student activism, and in the 60s and 70s, social media did not even exist.

A lot of the time, I think grades and this obsession with having perfect grades makes students afraid of failure. In life, it is inevitable that you will fail at some point, so I think that this notion of having to achieve perfection does a disadvantage to preparing students for the real world.

I 100% agree with this. I don't believe that my ability to get a good grade on a test proves that I understand and remember the material. If I were to take the same test a month later, I would probably fail it because I am not retaining the information. I only truly retain information when I am able to fully understand the concept and when I find the information to be interesting.

I really appreciate this statement because, as a student, I do believe that at times my ability to learn has been hindered by my desire to succeed. There have been numerous times, in which, I simply memorize something for a brief period of time well enough to regurgitate the information on the test. But, this process prevents me from fully understanding and developing important concepts.

This is an important point to emphasize. I think that people overcomplicate communication via technology, and that people use the medium to communicate in a way they normally would not. I think that whether you are communicating face to face or screen to screen, communication is communication.

I agree with this idea. I think that no matter how much new technology is introduced, the core of teaching comes down to the teacher and the teacher's ability to interact effectively with the students. A bad teacher can't hide behind technology forever--at some point they will be exposed.

I disagree with this assumption that teachers would simply get lazy and continually reuse content. I don't think the reusing of content is enable by LMS. I think some teachers already reuse content, and that the choice to do so is dependent on the teacher. I don't think LMS changes this fact, or enables teachers any more than they already are.