---
# System prepended metadata

title: Reading Responses (Set 2)

---

# Reading Responses (Set 2)

- Checklist for a [good reading response](https://reagle.org/joseph/zwiki/Teaching/Best_Practices/Learning/Writing_Responses.html) of 250-350 words
    - [ ] Mention specific ideas, details, and examples from the text and earlier classes.
    - [ ] Offer something novel that you can offer towards class participation.
    - [ ] Begin with a punchy start.
    - [ ] Send to professor with "hackmd" in the subject, with URL of this page and markdown of today's response.

### **November 1- Finding someone and living alone**

Has technology ushered us into an age of loneliness? This is the question we explore as we read Ferdman (2016) and Klinenberg (2012). Ferdman dives into the misconceptions surrounding online dating, while Klinenberg unveils the truth of living alone — straight from the sources themselves. Though many think that online dating is fueling a society that relishes in avoiding real-life interactions and instead leans into meaningless, fleeting relationships, Ferdman reveals that this couldn’t be further from the truth. The reality is that couples who meet online have a higher marriage rate than those that meet in person, and that online dating is helping introduce people (in real life) to a host of others who they might’ve never otherwise had the chance to meet. Meanwhile, Klinenberg’s interviews with “singletons,” reveal that, contrary to popular belief, most people living alone have chosen so purposefully, are not lonely, and take active measures to build and maintain a meaningful social life.

So why is it that the majority of people believe the opposite of these two groups? Well, it all relates back to agnotology. As Proctor’s 1995 definition (as cited in boyd 2019) explains, agnotology is a cultural ignorance fueled by the purposeful dissemination of misinformation. That is exactly what has happened in the case of online daters and singletons. The majority of studies published and publicized to the public are ones highlighting small margins that are not representative of the larger whole. They highlight catfishing, such is seen in the wildly popular MTV show Catfish, or relay statistics that purport levels of depression amongst people who live alone. But they never (or if they do it is rare), highlight the mental health benefits of living alone or the marriage statistics amongst those who meet online. If we took a larger effort to expand our own knowledge and question the information that is presented to us as “reality,” we would see that there’s a whole other world behind the veil. 

### **November 5- Haters**

The rise of the Internet hasn’t magically made people more vicious, it’s just put their viciousness out in the open. Before the Internet, a racist person might have seen a commercial on television highlighting a minority, and then went on a tirade at their local watering hole touting stereotypes and making radical comments. Sixty or some odd years later, a person cut of that same cloth can now see the commercial then immediately publicize their radical thoughts to thousands on the Internet… anonymously. 

Today, a person’s opinions don’t have to be tied directly to their personhood. This seems almost paradoxical as opinions are a direct reflection of the person they come from, but the anonymity of the online world has allowed for depersonalization, which Reagle (2015) discusses in conjunction with the reflection that the Internet has given way status equalization. As danah boyd (2017) discussed in “Did media literacy backfire?,” the Internet’s valence lies in how we use it. On one hand, status equalization can be a positive, because it means that people who might not have otherwise had a voice now do. But on the other hand, trolls can use status equalization as a weapon to attack others. People are quick to bash social media sites such as Twitter for not intervening in these comment wars or for not deleting negative comments (Reagle, 2016), but the negativity of these comments are not Twitter’s fault. And they are not the fault of the Internet either. They’re the fault of the person behind the keyboard.  It’s time that we started holding those people accountable, and replaced the question: What’s wrong with the Internet with: What is wrong with a society that is so swift to bash, belittle, and bully one another? Perhaps, we shouldn’t be looking outwards at companies like Twitter to intervene in our hashtag wars, but rather looking inwards at why we are participating in them in the first place.

### **November 12- Algorithmic Discrimination**

It appears George Orwell’s *1984* is finally here. Better (35 years) late than never, right? Big Brother or should I say, Big Data, lives among us. He watches our every click, every price check, every map search, every political affiliation. And he knows it all — the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

As I read Hannak et. al.’s (2012) findings, I had one recurring thought: Had I agreed to having my information scraped and held in data servers? The answer: Yes — in some pop-up or heinously long Terms of Service contract or another. Given this, is it just that I find myself angry at the fact that this information is now being used against me? The more I think about it, the more I think, not really — Google and other services are just doing good business. I can’t blame them for that, but I can be bothered. Especially at the fact that in Hannak et. al.’s study, they found that many search engines were politically bias. To what extent is Google, by showing politically biased search results that have been proven to sway undecided voters, just like Russia swaying voters, or Nixon trying to rig his reelection? The fact that we even have to wonder how much our own computer is trying to sway our political vote doesn’t bode well for an upstanding society. Neither does the face of systemic racism rearing its ugly head in Google searches.

I found it unfair to blame Google for being racist, when in fact, it’s not Google at all. It’s us. Google is merely using our most popular backlinks, searches, and images to cater to what it thinks is the most popular opinion. The sad part is that what’s being shown is hateful and sickening. As Bural tells Rutherford and White, it’s not so much about pointing out whether or not Google is racist, but rather it’s about shining a light on the “wider societal biases that are brought into relief by the algorithm.” (Rutherford and White, 2016) This is, at least, one good thing algorithms are doing for us. They are forcing us to see the state of prejudice that we remain in — even in 2019. Perhaps this could’ve been expected in the year 1984, but have we not learned? And is not time to start doing something, both on and offline, to foster a more inclusive, fair, and educated society? 

### **November 15- Shaped**

This week Instagram has been testing out [removing](https://www.businessinsider.com/instagram-removing-likes-what-it-will-look-like-2019-11) likes. Yep, no more will we be able to quantify how many people “love” our selfie, or other flattering photo that paints our life without a flaw. Considering “people are predisposed to scales and rankings and imbue them with an almost magical potency” (Reagle 2015, p. 139), this could severely impact Instagram’s popularity and effectiveness.  But in this experiment, likes will merely be hidden from others, and available to the person that has posted the photo. So, the poster can still see their own popularity (or lack thereof), just not others. And while I see how hiding the quantifiable aspect of comparison, one which, I agree, people undoubtedly thrive on, I don’t see how this is promoting a healthier self-image, given that people will still be able to quantify themselves. 

With quantifiable aspects of social media, the comments, and the constant connection to other’s lives and opinions, it comes as no surprise that narcissism rates have been rising as fast as obesity (the largest health epidemic in America) since the 1980’s (Reagle 2015, p. 138). Social media is fueling people’s infatuation with themselves, and (arguably) others as well.

I have had the Instagram app since roughly 2013. For six years this app sat on my phone. I found that I would, almost by instinct, click on Instagram, and begin scrolling — whether I wanted to or not. This “instinct” would become especially strong after I had a posted a photo. I wanted to know how many people had liked it, if anyone had commented; I wanted to feel assured by others (literally) liking me. (Note: This is why I do not think that Instagram hiding likes is all that helpful. I think people are most interested in their own likes. While hiding likes is surely helpful in halting some aspects of social comparison, it does not help people detach their self-worth from quantifiable aspects.) Early this year, my iPhone started telling me how much time I spent on it per day. It said over 4 hours… what was I doing?! Oh, that’s right, I was being distracted on Instagram. I decided to run a test and delete my Instagram app. My screen time fell to 2 hours per day. And (shockingly!) I started to feel a lot less anxious, and a little bit happier. The longer my app has been gone, the less I’ve felt the need to compare and to quantify — in short, the better I feel about myself, ironic given that social media is “supposed” to boost our self-image, right? 

### **November 19- Collapsed Context**

In my public speaking course we read a whole chapter on the “speech situation,” or how one goes about anticipating the audience of their speech based on the context in which they are giving it. For example, if it’s a wedding, you can assume that your audience might understand more personal jokes, and be more receptive to an intimate tone. This wouldn’t be quite the same case for a board meeting. Luckily, for speech givers, if they misinterpret the desires of their audience, they have the chance to interpret social cues, such as body language, and attempt to mend their speech to their audience. Social media influencers don’t have the same chance, and so as Marwick and Boyd (2010) discusses, they must imagine their audience in an attempt to tailor their content to their needs, while also balancing their own authenticity and credibility.

There seems to be an influencer paradox: Consumers want the people they intake content from to be both curated as well as authentic. As Marwick writes, “there is no such thing as universal authenticity” (Marwick & Boyd 2010, p. 124). Authenticity is a “temporally situated social construct” (Marwick & Boyd 2010, p. 124), one which varies greatly based on the audience that content is directed to, and the medium through which it is communicated. So, why then, do we expect such “authentic” authenticity from social media influencers who are — by virtue of their job — forced into *contrived* authenticity? And why do we believe everything they say? The reason relates directly back to our need to quantify, which we discussed with Reagle (2015). Once we see that someone on Twitter (or any other social media platform) has a large amount of followers, we think to ourselves: “Oh, they must be serving authentic, legitimate content. I mean, they’ve got a million followers.” Well, they probably have a million followers because they’ve carefully studied their “speech situation.” They know what their audience came for, and they deliver. Whether it’s authentic or not, we may never know. But do we *really* care?  

