Cass Sunstein explains in his article, “How Facebook Makes Us Dumber”, the tendency of facebook users to seek out information that confirms what they already believe. He explains the “vicious spiral” that occurs when a homogenous community of facebook users share articles that don’t necessarily have any factual truth. The article confirms whatever bias the community holds, and thus strengthening the belief. Readers of these articles don’t feel the need to fact check or seek out any contradictions of the article because they agree with the article’s content, and because every article that is shared within the community features the same opinion, it becomes as if opposition doesn’t even exist. In Leonard Pitt’s “When ears don’t hear, truth is
However, this idea overshadows how similar our countries really are. Censorship occurs everywhere, even in the “Land of the Free”. Things are swept under the rug and kept from people for the “greater good”, but should not the greater good be for people to know what is going on in the world they live in? People constantly post things just to have them removed; social media is a tremendous platform to inform and educate people on things that the news refuses to cover or hides. Concealing information and censoring the media defeats the purpose of the First Amendment and goes against the foundation of our country.
For Professor Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein, online communication is not as devastating as some critics argue that it reduces people 's ability to read, write, and think in a clear, logical and critical way. They point out considerable problems like reductive abbreviations substitute for complete words and sentences in writing and the fast speed message exchange reduce the time for thinking. On the contrary, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the Internet is only another field that can expose some weak and unsophisticated writers (171). The technology itself has nothing to be blamed, but it is essential for people to step back and discuss how to develop new ability to face the challenge of the new technology. After all, technology improvement
Nicholas Carr 's had made an article 'Is Goggle Making Us Stupid, ' back in 2008. It was an article about how the use of computer and the effects it causes on the human mind thought process. In my opinion, Carr did not have no legitimate studies to back up his own judgment yet, he made some good points. Even though he only got a opinion from his peers, they all seemed to agree on his theory about the internet. I do think the internet makes people lazy when it comes to doing a research project.
Gladwell in his piece Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted actively rebuttals the argument that social media can be a tool used for social activism. Gladwell undermines the authority many people believe social media to hold by pointing out the formula for social media is a large range of networking; not hierarchy which creates roles, jobs, and leaders (410, Gladwell). Gladwell continues to assert that this networking is held together by weak ties of fake friends, whereas he supports face to face interaction that sparks true connection and change (406). He further utilizes the example of the lost phone and bone marrow transplant to highlight his view that social change does not come from participation which “go fund me” and
Why you just can’t give rest to your Phone. Deresiewicz also talked about the positive side of Facebook too that it helps to be in connected with long lost friends but also on the other hand he said, he didn't like to read the details of people life's that makes him feel empty and unpleasant and he also wrote that now on social media nothing is confidential. He also express himself towards the todays technology that people don’t like face to face interaction and he also said that we have given our hearts to machine, and now we are turning into machines. I agree with Deresiewicz when he said " But surely Facebook has its benefits long-lost friends can reconnect,
Whether it's through a smartphone, computer, Twitter, Facebook, or email. Because the internet is such a pivotal tool in everyday life, that is why the looming question of to what extent the government should have over monitoring the internet is so important. The legality of content monitoring is still in the works and the government has not yet finished regulating how much reach such monitoring programs have on the American people. It also appears that even with practically unlimited resources provided by the US government, the NSA surveillance program played a small roll in actually catching terrorist and criminals. Even though government monitoring has potential to be useful, but it falls short in that it doesn't necessarily work and has is very easy to abuse.
Identity and Expression Digital identity in the likes of freedom of expression, is contended by some to be constrained due to the impact it has to contemporary digital society, with the that freedom suggestion of expression infringes on other people 's rights and cause harm such as cyberbullying. Patently shown in ' The Price of Shame ‘video, the case examines Monica Lewinsky whose online identities were viewed and humiliated by millions. The scenario links closely to the reading of Fuchs, social media does not cause social issues, it magnifies them , ICT applications such as Facebook or snapchat are implements which aid in these social problems, scholars see them as platforms for behavior i.e. identity to be expressed, which often gives this impression for a trend to be growing. ‘The price of shame’ demonstrates how the web can magnify an issue and have lasting effects (reinforce the notion of the momentum of ICTS) due the marketing ideology businesses aim to make money from the extra attention ICT media gains, through the web 2.0 the internet acts as a supplier while the people who fixate and share it act as the consumers; falsifying that internet is perpetually renewing itself; Christian Fuchs (2014) critiques such to be corporate imperialism, denoting the digital society battles between intention and attention.
In my opinion we are not the dumbest generation because technological advances has encouraged the current generation to learn differently and more efficiently. A college professor, Mark Bauerlein, wrote a book in 2008 called The Dumbest Generation. He supports his claim that we are the dumbest generation because he believes that we don’t know general knowledge like the generations before us. Although he never defines what general knowledge is, some of his arguments include that we have a limited vocabulary due to the use of social networking and use of video games has hurt our learning in classrooms. I disagree with his claims because using a limited vocabulary on social media doesn’t mean we lack heightened vocabulary in schools or in the workforce.
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.