This is true for people who have personal social networking accounts, rather than a brand or a business. The most popular thing now is the sharing of photos. But, it's done in the same manner and form of professionally produced material. What this means is that professionals and ordinary people are on the same level.

This is true because usually the information I'm sharing only goes to the people I have in my network, not the world (public). This is true for most people, too. The conversations are, usually, limited.

We discussed this in class. User-generated content is a social theory because it is put forth by the people, not one company distributing information. People join together to generate content and put it out into the world, known as media relations. It's social in the aspect of content being commented on or replied to by the people.

For the parent, it's all about establishing trust with their children. The internet is an amazing thing if it is used in the proper way. Not everyone doesn't care about their privacy while being an active internet user.

While this is the case for many teens, it does not speak on behalf of all of them. It is different for everyone. It is wrong to only listen to the opinion of one person on such a broad spectrum of users.

When dealing with their kids' involvement on the internet, parents are mostly concerned with privacy. Social media, however, has become a very private forum, if that's what you want it to be. Extensive privacy settings and features make popular social networking sites virtually secure and private. Ultimately, it's the teens that have the decision of what they want to share and whom they want to share it to. Parents can even adjust privacy settings for their children if they are under a certain age.

Which, in a way, promotes laziness. Instead of actually going to the game, a teen can have the same experience watching the Snapchat stories posted by friends on his or her phone. They are constantly tapped in, regardless of where they are.

Because of constantly being tapped in to social media, communication between teens has been hindered. The practice of texting someone you're sitting next to has become common. I believe it has had a negative impact on the way we communicate, since a cell phone acts as a wall for someone to hide behind. People would rather communicate via text than in person.

Social media involvement is the key to popularity for teenagers. What's disgusting is that the amount of likes you get on a picture is directly related to how "popular" you are. Teens are constantly connected to their friends online through numerous social networking sites. It has become part of the culture.

With popularity the subjects got misconstrued and taken out of context. Companies took their advertisements too far and the original message was not being received anymore.

The goal of the corporations is to draw attention to the business and attract the culture into buying them. The people then believe that because they're buying that product, they're supporting the cause. Whether or not the company cares about the issue will never be known, but they put up a front to make us think they do. The proof is in the advertising.

What is being said here is that corporations feed off of what's trending on the internet. They change their logos and ad campaigns to reflect the current hot topic and gain notoriety. This ultimately gives their company or brand more attention (whether it be good or bad) and generate more business. It's all about the money.

I think that he means the term "viral" is very broad. The things that are viral are very obvious; it's what's extremely popular and circulating recently on the internet. Anything can be viral on the internet. I don't understand what he finds to be unclear.

I do not agree. I think that making this connection between the two topics make it easier to understand. To me, they are the same thing.

I believe the author is referencing the people that are not involved with media are the ones that are confused? I find it hard to believe, however, these terms make things confusing. Those who are in the marketing, advertising, and media industries should be very familiar with these terms.

This means that the internet will be more like a TV in the sense of just watching what is on it, not having your views expressed or contributed. The conversation will come to an end. It virtually won't exist and there will be only be one distinct voice.

The author is saying that the current global network will shrink drastically in the future is something isn't done. Our communications network will divided. But what could be done to change this?

I think what the author is stating here is that the internet has become less of a forum and more of a niche community. There are only a few major sites that have the most popularity (like Facebook and Pinterest) that others can't compare to. This makes the interent very centralized; dominated by a select few. It also causes it to be less open.

An example of this would be the world responding to a graphic or innapropriate post online. This has happened a lot recently and can truly ruin someone's life and reputation if you're being attacked by millions of people online!

What the author means by this is how people are dependent upon technology to stay connected. We depend on one another for news, updates, and information about our personal lives. In a way it is almost addicting. Personally I don't like the idea of having my entire life exposed on the internet, but most people do. It also promotes curiosity and jealousy.

The author is talking about how technology is instantaneous. A tweet or a post can be seen by anyone from around the world. Technology has made the world a much smaller place, uniting people together.

In this part the speaker is talking about media constantly forming and changing. It is moving at such a rapid progression, not stopping anytime soon!

This is one of the positive things about technology: it has become fast and instantaneous. It connects people places and things from all around the world. It makes the world a much smaller place. News can be viewed by anyone, anywhere.

What the speaker's saying here is that today, the audience has more power to affect the news and make change. Members of the audience can filter and select which types of news they want, comment on the news (thus creating discussions about it), and stay up to date on their technological devices. Before, the audience was limited to only what was available to them, not what they could make available. There has been a drastic shift, and the audience is in control now.

The author is saying that once one student becomes distracted, others become distracted too. The domino effect is put into play here.

What the author is saying here is that the success of these software programs could potentially be useful in creating a distraction-free classroom. But, still, the teacher would lose against some of the industries top professionals like Facebook and Apple. They would win against the teacher in a fight to keep the students' attention.

Why does this occur?

What the author is saying here is that while technology is beneficial in a lot of ways, it is also harmful. It can be difficult to remain focused while using a laptop, tablet, or phone because of easy access to other things.

I think this is a perfect explanation as to why people are constantly on their phones; the desire to remain informed and share information has greatly increased because of how easy it is to do on a mobile device. It has to do with the constant stream of information that is so alluring and sometimes, irresistible.