blog 1

Reading assignment: Intro and Ch 1, Net Smart


Despite "the internet" and "social media" being so omnipresent in our everyday lives, I like how the author refers to the sensation as being in the "still-early" years. Though he was speaking of the immense power of our in-hand devices, in a way, the publicly accessible version of the internet itself is still in its early years. Google wasn't founded until 1998. There are a few of us in this class alone (myself included) who are literally older than Google (yet it knows more than we ever will).

The idea of "mindful use" of technology is really interesting and thought provoking. Although the author was speaking of avoiding "click bait" and "impulsively checking your phone, I interpreted it to also include the way people engage online. The digital culture we live in does engage in a bit over over documentation, where everything is share-worthy. Though sometimes I've wondered things like "why were they recording in the first place??" or "was this really worth posting?" it has only been in extreme cases. But when something ridiculous or outrageous goes viral, I usually just give in to the shock factor and don't worry about the why or the how. And it seems that people post things in this way too. This can be seen from younger people posting things at random, maybe things they shouldn't be posting, and being surprised when these posts get them into trouble. Or when an an employee calls in sick to get out of work and then posts pictures of a football game they went to that afternoon, And then wonders why they got fired.  More than "mindful use" it seems like there has been a complete disregard for consequences. Do we post so often that we forget other people see the things we post? Has sharing become so second nature that we are unable to recognize appropriateness? Social media, it seems, has become too candid.

Information credibility testing certainly is a big issue these days. Although I do feel that many sites are getting better about validating their own content. When I was younger, I never remember seeing any indication at all about who was on the other side of the web page. And I don't think it occurred to me to ever wonder. (Was I the only one taking things at face value in the early 2000's?) But now, it seems like every web page includes, at minimum, the author and the date written.

The idea of the "thoughtful society" and the "master digital network(er)" are two mutually exclusive groups does seem to be a big issue that influences social interactions (specially older generations towards younger generations: "You kids are always in your phones"). However, I don't think these groups are completely separate in the slightest.

"Architecture of participation" I like that a lot. Especially because it doesn't minimize the individual effort. With the web being so endlessly large, it's easy to feel like something you do-- maybe something you do because you love it -- doesn't matter. but the idea that every input contributes to the "overall good" is really cool.

I also like the idea that the power does not lie within the technology, but with us when we decide what to use the technology for ("literacies made possible by the technology").

"being empowered or manipulated" interesting perspective, although that could be said for any medium. The news, for example. Is your news channel of choice biased or indifferent? How can we ever truly know? Isn't it possible that feeling "empowered" could just be blindness to being manipulated?

"social competency" that DOES seem to be mutually exclusive of digital skill (literacy). I;m sure we've all heard that the constant digital interactions are shrinking the part of the brain that processes empathy. (Scary stuff if it actually is true. I have not yet validated it for myself.)

"drowning in torrents of misinformation" it seems like we've already passed that point in our digital history, but I could be wrong.

Social media being "toxic" for our social lives is very real, despite the fact that bringing this up automatically puts people on the defense.

The fear of emails (the "digital treadmill") says a lot about how we are communicating. Or rather, how we AREN'T communicating. I, too, hate going through my emails, as most of them are impersonal alerts and advertisements for things I don't want.

On his comment about answering the phone during dinner, before smart phones: it is true that distractions have existed for years. It is human nature to want the newest, most advanced anything that exist. The latest convenience. Social media is just the newest "big thing." It may even be replaced by something one day. Humanity itself is stuck in a cycle of "we're making history" and "X years ago, this was state of the art. But now..." It's a very surreal feeling.

87% of teenagers being online sounds significantly more accurate than the "50% of teenagers creating/consuming digital media." That seems like a huge understatement.

"Competitive dramas" it does seem like everybody is trying to out dramatize each other. A strange combination of masochism and egotism?

A typewriter! Wow. I remember  seeing only one typewriter in my whole life. My mother would take me to visit my father at work, and he has a typewriter in his office. I don't believe he ever used it. I just remember hitting any and all the keys I could, thinking I was writing some fantastic novel when, in reality, I couldn't even read a Dr. Seuss book without trouble yet. Again is that feeling of "that  used to be state of the art."

The issue of attention should be interesting to explore, as I feel it is not solely influenced by the digital era. Anything can be distracting, as the author mentioned earlier about answering the phone during dinner. I think the digital era has more power over our memories than anything.