---
# System prepended metadata

title: Reading Responses (Set 1)
tags: [CDA]

---

###### tags: `CDA`
# Reading Responses (Set 1)

### 28th September - Fake News
###### Person A: "Did you hear XYZ isn't running anymore?"
###### Person B: "Where did you hear that? Facebook?"
###### Person A: "Yeah! My cousin sent me an article by Fox News!"" 

The spread of fake news has always been an issue -- especially due to the rise of [consuming news through social media](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/12/22/22195488/fake-news-social-media-2020). However, Craig Silverman's [article](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook) in Buzzfeed News describes how, in the 2016 election cycle, fake election news stories **outpreformed** the factual news stories. I agree with the arguments he made, but I do not think this is something surprising anymore. Further, anyone who consumes political news is aware how political operatives from both parties create, distribute and amplify fake election news. Emily Dreyfuss [used an example of how Republican operatives spread misinformation about Joe Biden's campaign](https://mediamanipulation.org/case-studies/recontextualized-media-biden-voter-fraud-organization) to highlight exactly how fake news can be spread and amplified so quickly. 

Personally, I have been subject to [WhatsApp group threads filled with fake news](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/on-whatsapp-fake-news-is-fast--and-can-be-fatal/2018/07/23/a2dd7112-8ebf-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html). The amount of articles I recieved containing false information on COVID-19 vaccines in the last year is uncountable. It has gotten to the point where public health websites need to havde a dedicated page to [debunk vaccine myths](https://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/). 

In my view, we should focus less on how much fake news has been amplified, and more on how to curb the spread of false information online. [The Media Manipulation Life Cycle](https://mediamanipulation.org/methods) is quite helpful until you realize that after mitigation -- the only step which actually prevents fake news from spreading -- is the adjustment, and revitalization of the fake news once again. I think it is important to consider that ***we know*** exactly how to prevent fake news. Whether it is the [USC News](https://news.usc.edu/179176/how-to-help-stop-fake-news-misinformation-usc-experts/) or the [BBC telling us how we can contribute to reducing fake news](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-46199347), the world knows what to do. It is far more interesting to consider what factors are preventing us from stopping the spread of fake news. In my opinion, big technology firms have an interest in spreading information -- real or fake; the more information that spreads, the more profit. Therefore, they have an inherent desire to seek profit and the spread of information. I believe these firms are the largest prohibitor in stopping the spread of fake news. However, I don't know enough and the online ecosystem is too large for one group to have such a large influence. Instead of searching for who is spreading the most misinformation, we should be searching for who is the most complicit in allowing fake news to be amplified. It starts with Facebook and Twitter, but it definitely does not end there.

### 1st October - Learning

On the many occasions in high school where I had crammed studying for a test the night before, I always wondered if I would be better off not studying? Would this even be helpful?  Should I be making an impulsive Google search on [how to cram last minute for an exam](https://www.studyright.net/blog/7-essential-steps-to-cramming-for-exams-without-losing-your-mind/)?


Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel challenge this timeless method of studying and generally question whether the methods of learning that we have been taught are the most effective. Specifically, "massed practice" and "rereading text" (p.3) are preferred by most students due to perceived ease and because we have been taught to do so by teachers, mentors, and peers. The authors argue that it would be better if we use effective and simple strategies that empirically prove better learning.

Specifically, "practice at retrieving new knowledge or skill from memory"(p.43) would allow for more durable remembrance, and "effortful retrieval"(p.43) would allow for stronger learning. These strategies, along with simple ones like repeated retrieval and using testing as a learning tool, may allow for achieving the goal of learning, which is to use retained knowledge to "make sense of future problems and opportunities"(p.2)

However, I question whether the changes recommended, such as "low-stakes quizzing", "self-testing" occur. Students and teachers often have an interest in what they perceive as efficiency and ease. In their minds, rereading text and studying notes is easy, so they are more likely to do it. Further, "cramming can produce better scores on an immediate exam"(p.44) - I would notice this result when it came to short quizzes - and both educators and students see academic scores as a gauge of their performance, so there is an incentive to keep methods that ensure academic proficiency instead of long-term knowledge retention. The reading does state that "we're easily seduced into believing that learning is better when it's easier"(p.43); therefore, it makes sense that people would want to continue partaking in easy methods, rather than shifting to something new -- even if it results in more conducive and effective learning. Would it be possible for both educators and learners to use better ways of learning? Yes. But will it happen soon? To me, that is unlikely as there are numerous incentives to keep the status quo, but the responsibility is on those who share knowledge to ensure that those learning -- most often students -- use strategies and methods that serve them best and drive them to success. 


### 15th October - Haters
Anyone who has ever had a public social media account empathizes with the harm caused by hate speech online. *"Alienated: You Fail It! Your Skill Is Not Enough!"* by Joseph Reagle explores the power of hateful comments online and its surrounding issues, such as the cause of adversarial rhetoric, anonymity and haters truly just being bullies. However, I found the idea that hateful speech is often justified by "libertarian rhetoric about freedom" quite interesting. The article suggests that free speech absolutists deem anyone opposed to injury caused by hate speech as being opposed to the concept of freedom of speech itself. In fact, most people opposed to injury caused by hate speech are not sharing an opinion on freedom of speech; they simply believe that people should not be harmed by online, often anonymous, commenters. 
 
Anonymity and bullies can still appear with children too. James Wellmeyer's article *"Instagram, Facebook and Twitter struggle to contain the epidemic of online bullying"* in MarketWatch highlights the challenge social media companies have with the epidemic of online bullying. Social media companies like Instagram and Facebook have an inherent interest to their shareholders to ensure their profits stay high; that means they cannot afford to lose anyone, including young people, from visiting their site. I question whether social media companies are doing enough to protect children, or are placing their profits over the wellbeing of young people. I would hope not, but the article suggests that "the most effective strategies to prevent bullying may be ones that cause Instagram to lose users and revenue."


### 20th October - Exam Review Questions

**Multiple Choice Questions**

**Q1)** What is one of NOT avoiding Filter Bubbles?

A) Deleting browser cookies
B) Reading news articles and blogs which aim to provide a range of perspectives
C) Removing browser extensions for ad-blocking 
D)Switching our focus from entertainment to education 

**Answer:** C 

**Q2)** Reed’s law refers to the value proportional to the number of:

A) Transactions 
B)  Groups/Affiliations 
C) Networks
D) Viewers

**Answer:** B

**Short Answer Questions**

**Q3)** Explain the differences between a filter bubble, reputation silo, and echo chamber: 

**Answer:** A filter bubble is an environment where what we see is determined by our own choices and actions, and algorithms. Reputation silo and echo chambers are both types of filter bubbles; reputation silo is a type of filter bubble that is managed by commercial interests and echo chambers are a type that leads to more extremism beliefs or opinions that may coexist your own - such as political or religious views. 

**Q4)** Define and give an example of Dissociative anonymity: 

**Answer:** Overall, dissociative anonymity is when a message is unable to be linked to a specific source. People may participate in this this as they have the opportunity to make their actions independent to the real world and hide their identity. An example of dissociative anonymity may be when a peer uses an iPhone at the Apple Store to email another peer a meme that bullies them. The sender’s message is unable to be traced given that they used an email account that is not theirs. 


### 26th October - Gender, Communication, & Contribution

Whoever said ‘the truth hurts, but a lie is worse’ probably didn’t work in Corporate America, because if Google had a choice in James Damore’s gender inequality memo, they would have made sure that society believed the lie about their gender representation in the workforce. A lot of what is said in the Wired article about Damore’s memo refers to science being a large factor in sex-differences. Damore states that there are significant differences between the male and female biology which enable different performance capabilities. Although this might be true, the Wired authors point out that “just as culture moves on, so too does biology,” and what seems so set in stone, really is not the case. 


Naomi Slater shares her perspective on the geek identity and how women are seemingly devalued in geek topics, such as on Open source, as traditionally, geek culture is fuelled by “hyper-masculinity and hyper-whiteness.” She touches on the the idea of Social Dominance Theory of a “hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth,” which is an incredibly unhealthy mindset that positions the logical male above the empathetic female - reinforcing stereotypes based on old-school notions. 


These two pieces of reading, I found, compliment each other quite well in disrupting the idea that “Geekdom” is all about the man. Who says that females can’t be logical or that some men may be more emotional than their female peers? The Opensoure identity is someone who spends their days coding - but somehow this is thought to be just men. News flash - women can code as well. Unfortunatelythough, the dominant male myths shut down any idea that “Geekdom” identities are evolving with us and that this broken mindset is on its way to being fixed. Going back to the Wired article, I question whether “shaky science” was such a big part of Damore’s memo because he had to state a case and using scientific data from reputable researchers allowed his points to seem more valid. I also imagine if the memo was posted by a woman, would it have received the same #Fired4Truth movement? Or would that woman be dismissed for her emotional thoughts on the matter? I would hope it would receive the same attention and fix our broken system. 

