I think this is important because in class, we talk so much about offering a solution to some of these issues, but I think we need to ponder this line of thinking: The solution is a simple as starting the dialogue and opening up the line of thinking and conversing.

Powerful.

This is exactly what I am starting to believe. We are doing ourselves, and future generations, a disservice if we continue to have this bias, that being "present" in one space takes away from the other.

So this is the term for when the digital and the physical world collide: augmented reality.

I feel like this contradicts the earlier statement that anti-digital-dualists "acknowledge this fact [that what happens in cyberspace is different then in person] when they admit that chatting online or at a cafe are not the dame experience-and when the point to how people in social media deepen their relationship when they meet their online friends in-person."

Why the word "supposed"? Does it imply sarcasm?

Good point! Just because it's private or just for certain viewers doesn't mean it's full-proof.I feel like that's probably something teenagers do not think about.

Not sure what the benefit of this is.

Positive aspect of finstas.

Isn't this a deeper problem? One article I read talked about how technology and social media is a vice and like any vice, the reason behind the vice is the problem. Isn't this mentality of having a fake persona so you won't feel judged part of a larger issue about being yourself? Isn't this slightly counter intuitive?

Oh I had it backwards. The "rinsta" aka real instagram is the fake persona and the finsta is the real them. That's an oxymoron no?

Interesting. Finstas are used to relieve the pressures of having that picture perfect online presence, meaning they dedicate their finstas to manipulating and performing to project what they want the world to see. Not what is real, but what they project.

Does the use of or access to multiple devices impact teens use of social media?

That makes sense! I wonder what they do with the old accounts after they move on to a new platform?

l would love to see that data.

How is this any different then the government deciding how old one needs to be to smoke or drink?

But the problem with this line of thinking is that Boyd gives adolescents more credit than they deserve. Yes you have responsible teenagers who utilize the parents or adults in their life, but lookout side that tiny circle and you'll see those kids are the exception. They are not the norm. Boyd underestimates adolescents need for freedom, which doesn't consist of asking adults in their lives for guidance.

Ugh. Everywhere I read that it's important to give students the freedom to make their own choices and help them navigate this world. While I agree with that, that the world is changing, it's insane to me that we keep giving these kids more freedom, and yet there is a rise in mental health issues in teenagers, and we wonder why? Come on people. The key word in the text is "minors". I get that at 18 they don't drink a magic potion to become an adult, but they for sure have not at 13! Why should a 13 year old be given the same right as an adult? 18 is the legal age for a reason: overall more maturity and life experience. These kids don't have that and instead of fostering freedom and maturity, we're fostering entitlement and self-righteousness.

According to an article by John Donovan,"Deepfake Videos Are Getting Scary Good", he mentions that, "It's important to note that not all video and photo editing techniques based in artificial intelligence and machine learning are deepfakes. Those in academics who work in the field see deepfakes as amateurish, relegated to mere face-swapping." I think the issue here though is that these academics view it as amateurish. History teaches us that when we brush off someone as naive or ineffective, or young and inexperience, they end up being way more than we thought. Pay attention now people.

This also made me think of other ways to target people: through subliminal messaging. We just read "The Lottery" and in it, the villagers blindly follow tradition, teaching the youngest of kids to also blindly follow tradition. Well in the case of the internet, if tradition dictates that it's okay to manipulate children's TV shows, what does that say about targeting them young? If politicians or advertisers decided to, they could begin manipulation young and foster a new generation geared to think and vote a certain way.

But are these view counts real or fake? And which is worse; that they're fake and people think they're real? Or that they're real and people are buying into them thinking they're real but that they are fake?

I think the problem is that so many people have the attitude of "so what". Modifying an animated kids TV show doesn't seem to alarm many people. The problem with this mentality is that it's not exactly about the tv show itself, but the fact that Youtube or whoever, can actually do this.

This is the section I will add to.

Thank goodness for low-level alchemy!

One of my concerns with how this survey is done, is the question of expectations. This survey is up to teacher and student discretion, so how do they know what the expectation for "good writing" is? I can only imagine that the expectations are widely diverse, especially considering economic backgrounds and the personal lives of the students.

Yea but is this because that's what the Common Core requires or because teachers truly feel this?

I think this is great! However, I worry that school districts care more about "buying" curriculum more than creating one. For example, I am responsible for implementing Lucky Calkin's Writing Units of Study, which is the writer's workshop model. I am forced to follow a rigorous calendar that places most of the writing importance on analyzing non fiction, creating and defending arguments, both in non fiction and literature. Traditionally called "Academic Writing". The problem with this is that yes, my students writing skills are improving, but so is their hatred for writing. They are burnt out by the time they graduate 8th grade, and I fear that that is not being taken into account.

It's interesting hearing about these surveys in middle schools, as I've never heard of them or seen them.

I think it's so interesting then that more emphasis isn't placed on the written portion of the SAT. If that is where are students are lacking, it should be valued. Unfortunately, we live in an assessment based society and if the skill isn't assessed it's often overlooked and not considered "important enough" to spend time on. That whole "teaching to the test" idea. But then, if writing isn't stressed as important on a test so important as the SAT, why should students view it as such?

I agree! The questions given were generic, and from a student standpoint, I don't see the value in them. If I was to take that survey, I would probably do it half-heartedly.

I was also thinking about the individuals who wrote the survey and was wondering if they were trained in it. When I write surveys for my class, a lot of thought goes into how to write it and what time of reflection I want my students do. I'm not always successful and I can tell that at times, they half-ass it too. That was the feeling I got from these questions: that they were just written to say they "had" a survey.

I know I said this a few times last semester but I feel it's so true-that students today are less and less creative and I have to wonder: Is that the institutions doing? Are they just lazy? Or are we not giving them enough outlets to exercise being creative?

I absolutely agree. I feel like this is where I struggle with academic research. Knowing where to begin looking and knowing how to use those resources to help me use others.

I'll always have my students research for about a week on a broad topic, and have them look at all possible ideas or angles their research could take. THEN we go to researching more specifically.

we get it.

very very very true!

Instead of criticizing students for using these online spaces, how about teaching us to use them in different ways?

or alternative facts?

This is an important point! To think of undergraduates as capable primary researchers instead of just writers of research papers.

Huh...so this is saying that people who aren't in the classroom, aren't working with the students, aren't actively involved, are the ones making the lesson plans and dictating the curriculum? HA sounds familiar.

We're told this in teaching as well. In order for kids to learn it has to be taught in a meaningful way! If it's not meaningful to their life or experiences then they won't learn as effectively.

Isn't there a way to marry the two even in an intro class? Teaching a more traditional view of research molded with our ever evolving world?