In the article Disconnected Lynda Smith argues that modern society is being lead astray by communication devices and large corporations, that instead of saving time with faster technologies like they want us to believe, we are really losing time and perhaps even our interpersonal connections. Right away Lynda acknowledges the skepticism of the audience and admits to being a technophobe, followed by appealing with the fact that she does use devices, but does not care for the brain-control-like qualities of modern day marketing. She goes on to list non-virtual activities she enjoys with friends, implying that technology takes you out of the moment during said activities. Lynda appeals once again with acknowledging an opposing argument that
AOW #5 In the passage ”Why Your Kids Like Snapchat” by Simmon exspresses things refering to snapchat. As she says “of course snapchat isn’t full proof, no app is”. I find that she uses things against facebook and instagram rather than promoting snapchat. I do agree that it may be ebetter than facebook and instagram but, yet it is still social media and however you look at it it’s not benifitial.
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
Companies such as Facebook and Twitter hold a large influence on what politician gets elected, and who doesn't. In an article written by Maeve Duggan and Aaron Smith, writers for Pew Research, they state that “Facebook and Twitter are equally likely to encounter political material and to engage in political discussions.” This suggests that those politicians that actively use social media have a higher chance of being elected, the reason being that their followers and users on the site are exposed to their ideas creating a memory of them to later use. Duggan and Smith also mention the effect of spreading political news without having connections to politics. Smith and Duggan write, “Despite these differences in the types of people they follow (and Twitter’s long-standing reputation as the domain of news and politics junkies), users of each platform report that they encounter a similar level of political content and discussion.”
In the essay “Where Anonymity Breeds Contempt” author Julie Zhuo points out that by revealing people’s identity; people can feel more familiar and be more humane when posting their comments and she notes, “At Facebook, where I’ve worked on the design of the public commenting widget, the approach is to try to replicate real-world social norms by emphasizing the human qualities of conversation. People’s faces, real names and brief biographies (John Doe from Lexington”) are placed next to their public comments to establish a baseline of responsibility” (89).The Zhuo’s approach seems reasonable and people can still have the opportunity to comment freely but aware that anything negative that can be considered trolling can be viewed by many people and can be easily identified. Other approaches that the author mentions like the moderator or rating people’s comments before being posted can be difficult to accomplish. Because everybody has different views about different topics, and when something is appropriate for some for others might be disrespectful. By exposing people’s identity obligates people to comment
Granted, Facebook or other social media sites are a great way to keep in touch with long distance friends or family. This can be great but should not be the sole way to interact with people. One reason as to why technology should not be used to limit social interaction is because it offers no face to face communication. Texts or emails can not stand in for hearing a friend’s voice or seeing a smile in person. Little by little, the internet and mobile technology seem to be subtly destroying the meaningfulness of interactions between two people.
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.
Where in the past manners were somewhat essential, they could in today’s society be viewed as sexist. Men holding doors open for women is an example of this. However I like to think that the man in question isn’t holding it open to prove how chivalrous he is, but rather because it is a nice thing to do for someone, regardless of their sex. Another excuse for lack of good manners is the introduction of technology. Where before, a first impression was made in person we now, often unknowingly, make a first impression through our social media accounts.
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. Censorship has been an ongoing issue in the United States for what seems like centuries now.
Nicholas Carr and Clive Thompson both talk about technology and the impacts on it, but through two different views. Yet I still believe either way that technology can negatively affect your social life and relationships you hold with others, but especially friends and family. Nicholas Carrs essay, “Is Google Making Us Stupid” he argues that using the internet as our search engine and reading source is altering the way that we read and process information. “Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives-or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts-as the internet does today,” (Carr 321). Carr supports his argument with stories of himself and other peoples experiences of how the internet is warping their abilities to do simple tasks such as reading a text message, an article online, or even something in print
Throughout Too much Facebook, An exploratory explanation of social media fatigue I saw that the organization of the article had a negative effect on their paper because it confuses the reader. It makes the research paper notes as strong nor interesting. One example is when they say the definition of what is social media fatigue in the first paragraph. Later on paragraph 1.2 it defines it again. This makes this article redundant with what it 's trying to say.