This is a crucial point and I think it is something that anybody studying any type of history should be very aware of. As valuable as the data that we find may be as far as developing a factual and statistical basis, it is imperative that we manage to distinguish our analysis of said data by taking into consideration the way others might have viewed it at the time it was gathered.

This is undoubtably a huge pitfall that comes with the digital search that I hadn't yet considered until now. As useful of a resource the internet can be, it can also provide those with powerful opinions to simply reside in their own echo chambers where the only type of media they are consuming is the kind that verifies their viewpoints while dismissing any contrary opinions. This does very little to harbor a conducive environment for discussion and is a very big reason why many issues we hear of today or so divisive. I wonder if there is any way to solve this, however. Or if the algorithms that underpin this reconfirmation structure will only grow in strength.

I think this might be one of the most severe limitations of digital history. What's important to note, however, is that it's not necessarily directly linked to a lacking access to technology. The inability to get information is an issue that has known to occur even during a time without the internet and is mainly an issue connected with the economically disadvantaged. I wonder if digital history is going to shorten that disconnect or widen it.

This isn't exactly about marginalized or silenced voices, but this statement made me think a lot about how digital history opened the door for history to be learned and expressed to the average person. Nowadays, anyone with some access to the internet has more information to their disposal than actual historians would have had a hundred years ago. This ease of access offers so much potential for people to become educated on topics that they would otherwise need to go to some type of school for and I think that is something we often take for granted.

As much as I can agree with the sentiment shared by other students who have commented here, I would argue that the absence of grading doesn't necessarily facilitate interest. I think a big issue I see is that students will use such a system to learn less not more. Precisely because they will not be penalized for it. I'm interested to hear what other think about this though.