I think it is interesting to analyze the contrast between the different definitions of the concept of citizenship. On the one hand we have the traditional way of thinking about citizenship, which that contains a historical component and tends to be politically biased, on the other hand, the digital citizenship overcomes physical boundaries. I personally agree more with the digital citizenship because it allows you to create a sense of community outside of geographical boundaries set by the traditional definition of citizenship.

I find this very interesting given that I grew up as technology was emerging, and I have been involved with technology in school my whole life. I feel that this has impacted my points of view, which has been made visible in my values and how these contrast with those that my family has.

As a psychology major, I think it is very important to address that communication is a lot more than just putting a message out there. In today's world, people seem to forget that communication also involves your audience, the way your message is perceived, and the response that it gets. This is where ethics become important because yes, we have freedom of speech, but when communicating we have to consider how our freedom must have limits in order for it to be ethical based purely on how communication works

Imitating the news format is a violation of the principle of fair representation because information is being presented in one way but it is not accurate in comparison with reality. This also means that the principle of nonmaleficence is also being violated because the news are usually faked with a bad intention behind it.

This is important because the more technology that is implemented in teaching, the more ethics are brought up and considered. This can be connected to the part of Reading #1 that talks about Integrating Ethics in Teaching Information Literacy. I feel like this would be a good opportunity to keep people aware of the importance of information literacy and ethics.

Although I mostly agree with this statement, it brought to my mind the Principle of Nonmaleficence. Most of our lives may have improved, but this principle isn't always respected which in turn causes some people's lives to turn worst instead of better. An example of this is when people are cyberbullied because it's easier for people to be mean to each other via the internet.

This is one example of why this idea might be good. As utilitarianism would say, the happiness of the majority outweighs the discomfort that being monitored may cause to this particular individual.

I think that education can make a big difference when it comes to how teenagers are using social media. Social media is a topic that already interests them, so I think that adding classes about it to teach them even more than they already know is a good investment.

I have very mixed feelings about how ethical it is for a school to monitor social media posts. I feel that people are entitled to their privacy, but at the same time social media posts are public and people are aware of that. However, this sentence really got me thinking about how many problems could be caused by the school watching everything the kids say on social media. We all know how kids can exaggerate a lot or not think before they act, so a simple social media post could become a huge problem if misinterpreted by the adults who tend to take those things more seriously.

I chose the principle of utilitarianism. I found this rather interesting because I feel that at first it sounds really good because you focus on doing what's best for the majority of people. You focus on what brings them happiness. However, as you think more deeply about it, utilitarianism has very blurry lines about what's good or not because they only have the one principle of making the majority of people happy, which can become an ethical problem if the majority of people want something that is not considered particularly good.

This reminded me of the part in the podcast where Dash mentions that in his mind computers are a tool to create, not consume. This was a very interesting statement because most people see technology as a commodity that is good to get our needs met, but not all of us see technology as something used to build more things. This makes me think that some of us may appear entitled to this technology and the commodities it gives, without taking into consideration the amount of work that is put into making such technologies possible. I think when it comes to technology and ethics it is important to understand everything that goes on behind the scenes when creating new technology instead of only seeing what is obvious and right in front of us. We need to dig deeper.

This small sentence stuck with me immediately. The reason is that it automatically made me think of the fact that we as humans are aware that a big part of our lives is constructed. We use phrases such as "this is socially constructed", we even make movies that show this concept. It's funny, but the first movie that comes to mind is Wall-E. In that movie, everything was planned for humans. Everything was constructed. So this shows just how aware we are as a society that a big part of our lives is constructed, yet we as humans crave complete freedom, but we do not want to give up our technology. I don't think it has to be one or the other, but this sentence triggered a bunch of thoughts on how we can reach a good midpoint between the parts of our lives that are inevitably constructed because of technology and the level of freedom we hope to achieve. What do you guys think?