---
# System prepended metadata

title: Reading Responses Chris Cohen
tags: [CDA]

---

###### tags: `CDA`
# Reading Responses Chris Cohen




## Reading responses 

### Sep 14 2021 (Tuesday) - Agnotology and epistemological fragmentation
    Since the 2016 election, the conversation around the tangible impact
    of social media and internet information on the world we live in has been 
    a frequent discussion.
    
    Boyd's presentation discusses the rise in social media and internet use 
    and the effects it has had on information, specifically the intentional 
    use of social media algorithms in order to persuade an audience, often in 
    hopes of seeding doubt and conspiratorial beliefs. Her reference to the 
    ChristChurch massacre provides the audience with a relevant, well-known 
    event which expertly illuminates the use of the internent in order to 
    direct traffic intentionally. 
    
    The most compelling argument came when discussing the availibilty of 
    information. Boyd goes on to explain that in most cases, finding 
    scientific or well-researched work can be more difficult to find than
    that of conspiracy or intentionally misleading pieces. People under 25 
    use Youtube as their primary search engine. As most conspiracy theory
    pieces or 'alternate thoughts' are often created and propogated by 
    smaller creators or independently operated groups, Youtube and sites 
    like it are perfect places for them to be posted. Scientific works, 
    however, are often posted in more traditionally academic environments.
    This can lead to young people being unfairly influenced as they will
    encounter more 'alternate thoughts' in places they spend more of their
    internet time. 
    
    One can argue that the onus should be on the individual to seek out 
    information in a variety of places, however I believe that does a 
    disservice to society as a whole. Instead, I would argue that 
    publications should strive to make their information as accessible as 
    possible in order to compete with the contradicting arguments that
    are out there. I am a firm believer that when faced with a full picture
    that includes both sides and all information, most people will be able to 
    decipher what is the right/wrong side of a topic. But without being able
    to easily hear from both parties - therein lies the problem.
    
    The internet is a new frontier, with innovation occurring at a constant
    rate. There will always be people who's aim is to cause chaos and 
    distruction, it must be the goal of the collective to meet that
    with a peaceful resistance of knowledge.


