I think this may be a good idea but also would there just be another way to spread hate speech. I feel like once it stops in one area individuals who still want to get their point across will find a way to do it.

This is definitely not the way to think about searches because a lot of the times the top searches are sponsored.

Just like we learned last week, fake news travels very quickly on social media, so this makes a lot of sense.

I also think this would be a problem in society because some would call this censorship....

I love how the attorney places the blame on the internet. Sure, he saw hate on the internet but it was his own actions that put him in that situation. The internet is just a platform where information is held.

If google can only show you information that exists on the web then we need to find a way for more information to be accessible, if that is possible.

These are definitely two different things but somehow google and other search engines have found a way to correlate them.

I think this is a very important statement. We all just kind of assume that google has the correct answer because it's google. We just want information to be quick and correct and are gullible in that nature.

Or one actually wants to reverse the trend?

This is definitely true. If you have a headline that can make someone cry, get excited, or is just relatable, in a sense it will spread a lot more quickly.

I am a big time twitter user and this is very true. Sharing falsehoods the majority of the time produces more likes and retweets. Individuals on twitter want to be famous and get their name out there and if it means sharing a false story they are willing to do it along with arguing about it for more attention.

Fake news always has a better story because it is fake. We want the juicy stories and real media isn't always as interesting.

I think with all social media, especially twitter, we want everything to be fast. We want to be able to read a headline of two lines and know exactly what happened and as long as that headline grabs our attention we absent-mindedly share that information. Fake news travels faster because it's more interesting and grabs more attention. On twitter, the majority of individuals are on there for laughs and gossip. It takes 2 seconds to read a tweet or a headline and it takes an additional second to like or retweet it. Everyone just wants fast paced media and stories.

If we continue to share things without fact checking them we are just as much a part of the problem because we are helping in the spread of false information.

I think as a society we are lazy and gullible. If something is written as an article, we just believe it because as a society we have started to lose skepticism and we believe everything that we see. We have to start believing things with a grain of salt. It takes a short amount of time to fact check articles but living in a fast paced society, we want everything at the snap of a finger and we just expect it to be true.

It is very important to do research on researchers to see if they have any connection to different businesses and if they are knowledgeable in their said field. For example, if we think about Dr. Phil most of us think that he is a medical doctor like a psychiatrist but he actually only has a PhD in clinical psychology. It is very important to research individuals because it could very easily be fake news.

I learned a lot about this particularly in my health statistics class. Everything is a business and their job is to push their product in any capacity that they can. Some businesses even hire researchers that will highly rate their products in exchange for money. You have to question everything, researchers and products because with money and privilege businesses can bamboozle consumers.

For me, in the sciences we have been taught to question everything. Curiosity and skepticism are key in creating new knowledge. So in my opinion, I think not trusting is a viable option.

We definitely need to work to restore trust in the pharmaceutical industry but the only way, would be to limit the privileges of big companies and there doesn't seem like a valid way to do that at this moment.

This is a very true statement. Research and statistics can be manipulated in many ways to get desired outcomes. There needs to be some sort of system in place to hold individuals who are manipulating science accountable. If we think about the anti vaccination example, a researcher manipulated data to make that claim and individuals are still holding on to that idea today, even though it has been proven false. Researchers have a lot of power and privilege and they affect society in a lot of ways and they need to be held accountable.

This is something that we discussed in my Health Statistics course. If we are basing the validity of experiments off of statistics, there's no way to tell if the statistics were manipulated for favorable outcomes. Also, correlation does not mean causation.

Money is becoming way more important than the safety of individuals. How can researchers report favorably for a drug that can potentially kill individuals just for money?

This goes back to privilege. Companies who have an exponential amount of money have the ability to hire researchers to "research" their product. If researchers are getting paid to give a favorable report of certain drugs then they are going to do just that.

On campus if you look at the majority of science professors, they're males. Men are given a privilege and women continually face bias.

This is a big problem in academia. Even the name placing on a published article can alter your chances of a job in academia. This isn't particularly fair but this is how it works.

This is kind of the point that I brought up in my last annotation. To get jobs in academia you have to be published a certain amount of times just to prove yourself.

I've been hearing a lot that department chairs, especially in the social sciences, hire professors based on if they think that they will publish books and articles. I remember eating lunch with new candidates for one department here at Wake Forest, and there was a very competitive candidate that was graduating from a very well known university but they didn't pick her because they didn't believe she would produce the most research. I think it is disheartening that we base jobs on their research productivity, instead of potential but this is how academia works.

Women and men have never been equal in the academic realm. Men have privilege over women in academia which allows them more opportunities for these promotions and tenure. It takes a lot of energy for a woman to get in the same position that a man is, and they could be overqualified but that is how society is. Think about this in terms of minority women, who are even more at a disadvantage because they have two things working against them, their race and gender.

Minorities have to play a game to be recognized for their work. It is sad but this is the way it has always been and I am not surprised at all.

This is something particularly relevant in the classroom. If there is a topic that the vast majority, who happen to be white, don't want to address then it won't be addressed. Something like this similarly happened in my PREPARE class this week. With reworking the PREPARE objectives, I suggested that we needed to focus on intersectionality in regard to sexual assault and abuse in orientation because in the videos and discussions it focuses on normative, white heterosexual couples. I got responses from white women that this wasn't that important and it basically got tossed. This is academia.

Everyone wants to have "global" conversations but if we only allow privileged white males to start and create these conversations it can never encompass this "globalness" that they're reaching for.

I think this is important because you can give individuals from minority communities a seat at the table in the name of "diversity" but did you actually give them the opportunity to speak up and voice their opinion? The majority of the privileged think if they give minority individuals a seat at the table, then they've done their job, but if you don't give them the opportunity to voice their opinions, then it was no point at all. It was all just a show for "diversity" and in my opinion that's even worse.

Most of the conversations in academia are centered around the privileged, which are white males. The privilege, given to white males allows them to be in places where they get to start these conversations and the majority of the time they center the conversations on that they know. This is frustrating in academia when you come from a minority community, but it just shows what privilege gives you in society.

To actually make an impact, more universities will need to drop their subscription as well.

This is an incredible amount of money just for journal access, but in a society that is so research driven it is a necessity.

Like I said in the last article, these journal sites are businesses!! They charge for access and they charge for publication. The open access publication charges that put on authors limits their publications unless they have a big university behind them.

This is a very big deal, particularly for individuals in the sciences. As a biology major, I use this site to find journals for my lab reports, research, general curiosity, etc. If we canceled our subscription, it would definitely create an impact. I think we all might relate to reading an abstract and finding an article that fits perfectly with our research just to find out we don't have access to it.

This is very real. The majority of the time, individuals don't even know the privilege that they hold, and until they are educated and gain an awareness nothing will change.

It seems like information privilege is highly associated with economic privilege.....

In theory, it would be a good idea to leverage paywalled information but Wikipedia is not a credible source in any academic setting, so this could be beneficial for general knowledge but not for reliable research?

This also calls into question how do we create safe spaces when we live in a society, where individuals don't believe they are necessary?

This goes back to my previous statement. You can rally and plan speak outs but if you don't have someone at the table where legislations and decisions are being made, they'll never know what you are fighting or advocating for.

I think this is a very interesting analogy, that I've never thought of before. We are in a sense just being pumped up with knowledge from our professors in the education system. I believe this needs work though. Any ideas for improvements?

With all forms of online learning, lacking a presence from a teacher or even students creates feelings of isolation. I think this is why in most online classes, professors want you to interact with each other whether that be in forums, discussions, or creating some sort of group assignments or projects. They try to address this feeling of detachment but it usually isn't as simple as that.

I definitely agree with this statement. In a lot of my biology classes that have been competitive, I've seen quite a bit of cheating going on to secure good grades. While this is not okay on any level, it speaks to what a competitive environment will do to your morals.

We have shifted to a society where students are only motivated by grades. Students are disengaged from learning and are driven only to receive an above satisfactory grade. Through this students have learned to just do an assignment for the sake of doing it, instead of actually trying to learn about the topic. I remember in my calculus class, a student told the professor "Only teach me what's going to be on the exam, and the additional stuff, don't worry about it". This just speaks to how grades have caused students to only care about them, which leaves them disengaged in the classroom.