I think that this little paragraph here makes a good point. I know when I first got a cell phone, my mom would always what to check it. Now I know that she was just doing it for my safety, but at the time it felt like she was snooping around. Those were my friends,not hers. She had no right to know what was going on in my friends' personal lives. I think that most teenagers don't have everything to hide, but some information they don't want their parents knowing. But then, why do adults get to know everything that we are doing, but we don't get to know everything adults are doing?

I think this statement has a very good point. People my age or younger tend to post things without thinking about it twice. For example, a girl from my high school had broken up with her boyfriend and posted stuff all over social media about it. Most people want to keep that type of information off of the internet. However, she was so consumed with wanting everyone to know, that she decided to post about it everywhere.

This is the problem with posting stuff online. I know there are always people saying that they posted something online and then their aunt or cousin or mom, someone they are related to, always comments on their post. It is embarrassing because first of all, adults don't really know how to comment on posts, and because you didn't post something so that they can comment on it. Or when people comment on a post and their comment has nothing to do with the post like saying, "hey call me soon" on a picture of you and your friends.

This makes a good point. Not every teen, even though most, have accounts on all the popular social network sites. It depends on their preference and where they think they fit in. So, I feel like it is the same thing in any real world setting. Not all teens hang out at the same places, just ones where they think they belong. The only difference is that it is online.

I am not surprised about how many teenagers had cellphones at this time. But I guess I didn't realize how much we don't use our phones for actual phone calls. I feel like now I use it for phone calls because sometimes I don't like to text everything out. But definitely when we first get cell phones, we don't use them for phone calls as much because texting is the "cool" thing todo.

I feel like Shirky makes a fair point here. How do we really know what is shared content and what is supposed to be private? Once it is on the internet, everyone can see it, even if accounts are set to private. There is always a way to get in.

I think what Shirky is getting at here is that change scares everyone. Some people are very adamant about ideas and concepts staying the same as how they always were. Others are able to kind of go with the flow and accept the new changes. We see that everyday within our own society, not just new inventions. I think that when people do not understand a concept right away, they are against it. People have to understand though that what they think is normal now was weird once too.

When I first was reading the article, I didn't understand why it was such a big deal that news was on the internet. You can still be a professional and write on the internet instead of paper. It was not until this section that I really understood it. Having news on the internet is getting the news and ideas of these professionals for free almost. It takes away their professional title because they are basically worth the same amount as anyone on the internet.

People like to be a part of something or to do as others are doing. No one likes to feel left out or "behind" in any way. Posting things like this on the internet just feeds into our habit of being like everyone else. But is that always a good thing?

This is a good marketing strategy. The only issue that I have with it is that some companies may not actually believe in the cause and are just using it because of the publicity. For example, Bud Light was boycotted for its LBGT issues, yet it created an ad relating to it.

I think it was genius to add in pop culture references to the design. Like the article says, it adds individuality with the user. Maybe the user themselves is not gay, but having the pop culture references can grab their attention and make them want to support the cause.

This is one of the problems with organization/promotion memes. Some of the people may actually care about the message you are trying to convey and others are just doing it to follow the crowd. I guess it depends on your companies beliefs if that bothers you or not, but I would assume that you would want as many supporters as possible, not just people who are following you blindly.

After reading this, I understand memes a little bit better now. Every human being loves gossip and loves to know information about other people. Memes are this way to get to know information about people, not because they say it right away, but because it is almost like a hidden message. When you see a meme, unless you know the context of the photo, video clip etc. then the meme might not make sense. You then get this burning desire to find out the original information. This is in fact a great marketing or advertising tool, in that sense.

I feel as if this definition is nothing different than a meme itself. I guess the main difference would be that the media would stay in the same state as it originated in. However, I feel like it is impossible for anything to stay the way it was. If people can make fun of it or open it up to new meaning in anyway, they will.

I never thought of something being "viral" to be in a negative connotation. What about the charity challenges like the ALS ice bucket challenge? Having it be a viral event helped the organization, not the industries power complex.

I like how the author compares the two different versions of the internet. In one version, she talks about how it is a library. It has tons of information on whatever we want, all we have to do is search for the information and it is right there at our finger tips. The other version is comparing the internet to television. Television is much more controlled. Certain shows cannot be allowed on tv because they are too inappropriate or because the government may not want that information getting out. This is the kind of internet, she is talking about, we are heading towards.

I think what the author is getting at here is, with the internet being monitored all of the time, do we really have a voice anymore? Who is the person responsible for telling us we cannot have our freedom of speech on the internet? Is it even a person? The dream of the internet has now changed. It is no longer the dream to have freedom of speech ,necessarily, but to have privacy against those who we do not want seeing our posts

It sounds like the author is discrediting us as a society. We have turned the internet into something it is no longer. We made it another place to hide our thoughts and ideas from others. When it was created it was meant to be a place where you can share them

Sometimes though I feel as if the websites sensor too much. For example, google is able to sensor some information in china that the Chinese government has forbidden their citizens to see. Doesn't this go agains the whole point of the internet? Shouldn't we be able to search for whatever we please?

This connects with the idea about sorting through all of the crap. I think not only do we need to sort out what we think is correct information or not, but we have to sort out if the information really connects with what we are looking for. I like the analogy of food because there are those crappy junk-food like websites that are easier to get to than those strong vegetable like websites.

That's a mix of amazing and terrifying at the same time. Why does google need all of this information? But more importantly, why do they need to do it so secretly?

I already have an idea as to what Zuckerberg is trying to point out. People tend to focus on the little things that are happening in life, aka the squirrel, and blow them to as big of proportion as people who are dying in Africa. This is because the internet has become this vent where people can talk about how their idea is superior to others or to stress that a squirrel dying is more important than the the people in Africa.

They went through so much effort to find the source of the bridge. It almost seems like it would be easier to go back to the way things were documented before the internet. At the same time thought, the internet has been able to connect people like never before. It has too many pros and cons for me to be able to decide if it is useful or distracting.

Are social media sites somewhat replacing the job of the journalist? Are social media sites in competition with journalism?

We now have a way to document everything that is happening in our lives with just the hit of a button. There is no way to delete this information, it is here forever. It is amazing to realize that this has all happened with in 10 years or so and that everyone can see what everyone is doing no matter where in the world we are.

Its interesting to see how far we have come a society. It took him three weeks to get a response back. Most news companies now have a twitter, facebook, or instagram associated with them. They can reply to their audience in seconds. Sometimes the news even uses these websites as sources.

The connection with second hand smoke, I thought was genius way to connect the two. It is fascinating that one computer could do so much harm, even to people who are not using it

I don't know whether I think this is a good point or whether I am just sadden by it. Is that really what our youth is struggling with?

I never would have thought that this could be something biological. I just assumed that it was because the youth that is growing up today is growing up with technology. Is it more stimulating to those kids than adults? Or is it just because adults have lived longer without technology than we have?

I definitely agree with the writer's point here. It can be extremely distracting when you are trying to get work done, but someone posts something that you get a notification about. What can be worse is when you are tagged in the post because then you just focus on you and the post. Trying to go back and doing your work after that can be difficult because sometimes you forget where you were in your thought process.

I have heard people say before that multi tasking is basically doing a bunch of activities half fast instead of doing one activity the whole way through

It's funny that society thinks it is a skill to be a multi tasker, yet we have known for so long that it doesn't work well

I think it was easier for him to allow technology in the classroom when it was first coming out because many students probably did not have it. This caused less distractions