---
# System prepended metadata

title: Reading Responses (Set 1)

---

# Reading Responses (Set 1)

- 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.



### September 13- Attention
What substantial evidence can be given to prove that the growth of the Internet and connectedness via digital media has had more negative effects on society than positive ones? As it turns out, not much. *Superconnected* explores the negative associations held in regards to technology, including addiction, loneliness, and increased anxiety, explaining that most of these notions have little to no quantitative data to prove them. Rather, there is more data to prove the positive effects digital media has had on society and the individual, including reduced stress, cultural inclusion, and advances in intellect. However, Chayko is careful to recognize that — as is the case for most things — whether or not technology adds positively or negatively to a person’s life depends on the manner in which it is being used.

I don’t entirely disagree with Chayko’s argument because I do not believe that technologically is inherently negative or leads to isolation, unhealthy lifestyles, or violence. However, I do not wholly agree either. My biggest concern in jumping to the conclusion that technology adds more positives than it does negatives is that many of the negatives she points out, such as increased depression after long screen times, lower grades as a result of multitasking, and “McDonaldized” (pg. 180) societies, are being fed by technology. Because the positive or negative effects of technology are directly related to how it is being used by an individual or society, I believe that in order to lessen the detriments and increase the rewards, we must teach and promote healthy uses of digital media to the masses. Otherwise, technology will beget the negative situations that it has the power to improve and even positively effect. However, this begs the question: How do we create rules regarding technology use without infringing on individuals’ freedoms? 

### September 17- How the web works

Have a long-held, not entirely founded notion that the web is incomprehensible? Never fear, the web is not nearly as intimidating as it may seem. Especially when thought of like a road — as the Mozilla developers introduce it — dotted with a bunch of cute stores and clients that want to travel along that road and shop. The web consists of a central relationship between the client (your device) and the server (the machine that brings your desired webpage to your device). In order for the server to get the client their goods, they need some help, namely from Internet connection (the street), TCP/IP (your car), DNS (your address book), and HTTP (your language). Hartley Brody then makes the point that we also want to make sure we’re on a safe road, which is where cryptography comes in, ensuring that hackers cannot access a given webpage and exploit the information (kind of like machines that alert stores if stolen material is being taken out of the store). 

These analogies were highly effective in making dense jargon easily readable. After reading Hartley Brody’s article I was left wondering if there were not a way to use cryptography in order to avoid the exploitation of the “data voids” that Boyd discusses. Perhaps, those who issue CA’s could also tag and “gate-keep” popular “data voids”. I, however, am not well-versed in the math behind cryptography, so I do not know for certain if this is feasible. 

Another question that came to mind when reading Brody’s article in relation to the CAs, was that he mentions all certificates are given manually. However, given that technologically is expanding so rapidly, how long until we can expect the verification of web identities to be done robotically? Then, once certificate authentication is done via other web means, will this further open up the possibility of hackers being able to more readably forge CAs, and how will we go about encrypting that process to impede them? The road is becoming far more windy now!

### September 24- Fake News

How many times have you heard or read the term “fake news” since 2016? If you said one time, that’s fake news. It seems that in the past few years, the term “fake news” has cropped up more and more, whether it be on social media, in newspapers, or on television. *Did Media Literacy Backfire?* (2017), *Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News* (2015), and *This Analysis Shows How Viral Fake Election News Stories Outperformed Real News on Facebook* (2016), all provide a dive into this new world rife with fake news. They address how hoax articles have inundated Facebook and other news outlets, what is being done to stop them, and how we must also be held accountable for sharing, clicking on, and exploiting these articles at a moment in time when the truth is at our fingertips. 

Boyd (2017) discusses a teenage girl who used the Internet, not to seek truth, but merely to corroborate already held beliefs, writing “they’d identified websites online that ‘proved’ their beliefs” (p. 2). This is a prime example of confirmation bias. Valenza (2016) discusses this as a common way people misuse media literacy because as a whole, people do not like to have their views or beliefs challenged, and it’s easy to find information that conforms with our beliefs if we search the right thing. Thus, I believe it’s become less a question of “How has media literacy backfired?” and more a question of “How have people manipulated media literacy to benefit themselves?”
    
As a society, we like information that confirms our own beliefs because it is uncomfortable to face adversity, so we manipulate. This plays into our pension for favoring experience over expertise. Silverman (2016) notes that most shares came from opinion pieces, which relates to what Boyd says about people valuing experience over expertise. People do not want to hear statistics that they feel are too far above them, they want information they can relate to and can make conform to their already existing views. This can be done with opinions, but not with facts. 

It is no wonder then that most articles shared on Facebook were opinion pieces, fake news, or clickbait. Given the polarization of society following the 2016 election, it follows that people would share articles not because they were interested in the information, but because they could manipulate them to prove “conservatives were insane” (Boyd, 2016, p. 8), or tear down opinions that differed from their own. 

While it is encouraging that Facebook has taken measures to monitor this, such as using triangulation to verify articles, there is only so much that can be in the hands of Facebook before people begin complaining that they are infringing on rights to view/share certain articles (false or not). So, in the end, it really becomes a question of whether or not we can trust ourselves and others to put the **truth** above “being right”.

### September 26- Learning

“So the instructor says, ‘Tell us what happened,’ and suddenly you’re thinking, What if that was me?” relates Matt Brown of the learning process that gave him the skills to save his own life after he was forced to make an emergency, one-engine landing. But it wasn’t the kind of learning that we’re so often urged to participate in. Instead, it was active learning, composed of simulators, testing, memorization, and application. In *Make It Stick* (2014), Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel, explain that the process in which Matt Brown gained the necessary skills to adeptly fly a plane are the some of the most effective learning methods. Most notably, these include: repeated and lapsed retrieval, self-testing, topic variation, practical applications, corrective feedback, and meaningful effort. And it turns out, millennials have been applying these skills more than we may think.

We’ve discussed the idea that millennials are born with an innate knowledge about technology that older generations are not — as if information regarding web systems is somehow embedded into their brains. But how is that feasible? Simply, it’s not. The reality is that learning is an acquired skill, as Brown, Roediger, and McDaniel expand upon in *Make It Stick* (2014). The real reason why millennials are (perhaps, though statistics from Sidibe’s 2015 study could argue against this) more adept at technology than the previous generation is because they have been exposed to it more. They’ve learned the underlying principles, and due to technology’s nearly ubiquitous presence, had to continually apply them. They’ve made mistakes, as anyone would, and both self-taught from them as well as gotten indispensable corrective feedback. Effective learning all ties back to the meaningful connections it can make a person’s life. Thus, it would make sense that millennials have a greater technological aptitude because the principles they learn about it are constantly being tested, retrieved, and applied in their everyday life and are consistently making a personal impact.

### October 4- Cooperation 

Why struggle when you could snuggle? That is truly life’s biggest question, and in *Why We Help*, Nowack (2012) discusses new evidence that proves humans are far more inclined to snuggle (also known as cooperate) than we think. Surprisingly, a crucial part of our evolution has not been competition with one another, but rather cooperation with one another. Nowack gives us a brief overview of the five mechanisms of cooperation (Direct Reciprocity, Spatial Selection, Kin Selection, Indirect Reciprocity, and Group Selection), and an explanation of how each play out both in simulations and in real life. 

But to what extent can we apply the mechanisms of cooperation to the Internet? The principle of indirect reciprocity yields itself nicely to Internet application, as it states that people are more likely to cooperate with someone if they know they have a good reputation. Internet can easily build or tear down a reputation. In the world of fake news, social media platforms are increasingly being used to tear down viewpoints and tarnish reputations — a practice incredibly harmful to cooperation and general well-being. When we spoke about fake news in class, Donald Trump (of course) came up. Fake news is, by and large, his reputation. And according to indirect reciprocity, reputation is the barometer by which we decide whether or not we are going to cooperate with another individual. It is not surprising then that so many have difficulty cooperating with Trump — it's indirect reciprocity at work!

We can also draw direct correlations between Surowiecki’s (Wikipedia, 2019) research on Crowd Wisdom and the culture of groups online. On one hand, the formation of online groups can foster a sense of culture, as Chayko (2017) discusses and as Surowiecki notes is a key factor in engendering cooperation. However, groups can quickly turn from wise crowds to harbors of groupthink. Many of the aspects of groupthink are present in filter bubbles. This yields the question: How can we subvert groupthink before it becomes a failure? And how can we foster an Internet that yields itself to trust, and above all, cooperation even in the face difference (and fake news)?








