He uses this idea because the reader can relate to it, like himself. Carr also explains about because of the easiness of the internet, it makes people full of artificial knowledge when he writes about the impact of the internet on the way how we think. He elaborates on how the growing technology affects the human life and their culture. He mentions Foreman’s life experience with related to how his life is surrounded by the internet. Carr’s essay is free from bias because he
I think that is is something that people break their daily routines to do. Like for example, when they get out of work and sit to wonder things. When people wonder because they do not know what is behind it all,
We are so concerned with impressing other people and worrying what they will think, that we ourselves, stop communicating. We tell people what we believe they want to hear, or what we believe will make us more appealing to that person or that group of people, rather than say what needs to be said or say what we feel is important. We are constantly checking the number of “followers” or “subscribers” or “friends” that we have across various platforms. When we notice that someone has more than us, it causes us to feel less important or more insignificant. Society has become almost dependent on social media, as most people cannot even remember someone’s birthday or phone number without it.
She emphasizes how much the Internet has developed throughout the years to the point that people are able to search up anything they want to, and yet it is as if the facts they receive do not matter anymore since they continue to believe rumors. The Internet has also developed to the extent that individuals are also able to post and share their own opinions online, and she is irritated that most people nowadays would take those opinions as facts just because they agree with their views, even if it is false, therefore leading to the start of rumors. Kolbert’s own views are made clear in the beginning of her article when she described the birther movement with a frustrated tone, and she hopes to evoke the same frustrated feeling in her primary audience in able to start convincing them to agree with
A sense of community is felt within the people outside the mainstream media. Communities are formed between those minorities of which mainstream media doesn’t favour. “The representation of ordinary people in alternative journalism does not set them apart as heroes or victims, but as voices that have as equal a right to be heard as do the voices of elite groups” (Atton 2008, p.221) Atton’s argument is that alternative journalism doesn’t alter or undermine the minorities views like the mainstream media.
In addition, climate change deniers, creationists, and anti-vaxxers can confirm their sanity and beliefs by locating a plethora of websites advocating these false beliefs. This could seem to indicate that humans are better able to think for themselves since they can read whatever websites they wish, but the aforementioned
Minimalism is present in communities on social media, books have been published and journalists are reporting on the impact it has had on society. Clearly the way in which the case for minimalism is presented was effective in convincing the audience that their lives are better with less. The text, visuals and audio used within the documentary to convey this message were implemented in such a way that they both confronted the audience about selfish consumerism, whilst also convincing them that it was not entirely their own fault, but they could change their lives in their own way to live with less and become happier. This documentary is a clear demonstration of the validity of “the medium is the message”, as the viewers expectation of a documentary are cleverly manipulated, through the visuals, text and audio to influence us into a minimalistic lifestyle, and the effectiveness of this is evident in the global groups and movements towards minimalism we can see through the
On the other hand, the things that people mostly do in a group is to copy or do something the same as another. What they do is seek people online, follow each other in a group to do bad thing and good things. Sometimes, people don’t have the same action and opinion, which is split mob mentality. This is an example of a group try to harass other people and on the good side, they try to do good
My brothers and I use social media for homework all the time. When we do not know a word we search it up or when we do not understand something we search it up. Although people say social media can be bad, and say rude things to you from online, you can always block them. The internet doesn 't have to be bad unless people make it bad. People would start fake accounts or say things that are unnecessary, make it seem that the internet is bad.
In other words, he mentioned too extreme downsides of social media as a counterargument which can stop people from being in favor of his opinion. To take a case in point, in the sixth paragraph, he described that through the social media, students can bully each other by posting pejorative and aggressive comments and be easily involved in behavior which contravene social ideology or law. I agree with the fact that it is useful to provide counterargument in the article to persuade the readers more efficiently by showing them that the author also consider objection but still his claim is more powerful. However, I think the counterargument in his article is too extremely pessimistic explanation which eventually can make people think that social media is ultimately harmful to students. Therefore, I think that it will be better to replace this paragraph, counterargument, with less negative statement such as students waste their time on non-academic writing or they create and use too many slangs and vulgarism thoughtlessly on social
According to ‘Tales of Bullying’ some people use the internet to bully because they don’t want to see the pain they cause on other people. Cyber bullying is just as bad as bullying someone in
Direct democracy is a system that allows citizens to make laws themselves rather than outsourcing the job to elected representatives. The advantages of having a direct democracy would allow the inhabitants to have the capability of direct authority and cast ballots that will influence how things are operated. Another advantage having this type of democracy would entail more transparency within government. Certain issues that would normally be considered classified, having a direct democracy all information related to government would be available for everyone to see. Although this may appear beneficial to citizens, a direct democracy can also cause tension within a government.
Why do people not take accountability for their actions, especially online? Richard Bernstein, writer and book critic, says “Anonymity is a tremendous aid to the...cowardly” (349). Some websites allow you to be anonymous so that you will feel more comfortable posting your comments and opinions. Without anonymity the number for people posting would most likely decrease. Anonymity is a way that some people tell secrets about other people that they would not normally say if they had to reveal their true identity.
Why is the first amendment the most important, people may ask? It is important because it gives people the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully assemble and petition the government. There is a boiling pot in the America so everybody is different , and with different mixes from different places. People may say what they want because of their opinion. If they feel like they need to say their words louder than others they can do that to, well now i’m going to explain to how the first amendment is the most important .
The three freedoms the government should uphold in honor of the fallen soldiers at Gettysburg are the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the freedom to a speedy and public trial. The freedom of speech is one of the most know if not the most know American freedom. It allows you and others to have your own opinion and say it out loud. The right to bear arms is a very disputed freedom. But, the soldiers in the civil war fought to protect themselves and others so why can’t the citizens protect themselves.