Reading Responses (Set 1)

# Reading Responses (Set 1) ## Reading Response 5 of 5 ### Fri Sept 17 - Attention Did I go into this reading fully prepared to being called out for my superconnectedness? Yes. Did I still enjoy it? Also yes. In Mary Chayko's *Superconnected*, she spends some time going over the benefits and hazards of constant online availability. Social media, video games, and the internet in general have made humans more connected than ever before. The developments and advancements in the field of technology have been designed to make life more convenient for humans. However, the reading mentions the "irrationality of rationality" example, which suggests that these tools perform their job so well that humans's rationality or sensibility decreases. I found this incredibly interesting because it is something that I have found myself being a part of. As I was reading this, I could only think back to how a mere few days ago I tried to schedule send an email to Professor Reagle and accidentally sent it in the moment. I lean on technology to such an extent that I often find myself not paying attention to details and trying to multitask. While I do feel like there is much to gain from the state of technological interconectedness of the modern world, things Chayko mentions such as providing comfort, empowerment and fast relief in case of emergencies, I strongly believe that it should not be the only connection to the world. It was hard to be a student, work as a co-op, maintain my social life with family and friends all around the world through screens during the pandemic. I have definitely felt a difference in my mood and overall energy, productivity, and excitement from being back in person and I will not take the outside world for granted ever again! ### Tues Sept 28 - Fake news *Had everyone in the country learned and used “crap detection” skills, would we have been so affected by “fake news” and media manipulation?* Due to the easy access to producing and consuming information through media, fake news and media manipulation will always be an issue that our modern world will face. However, I do believe that it is an issue whose impact can, and should be, minimized—and one effective way could be teaching “crap detection” skills, which encourage analyzing the current context, credibility, author(s), and purpose/point of view of a particular source. Teaching media literacy skills such as these is a great way to debunk fake news by doing the research ourselves and prompting us to think about what kind of media we consume and how that influences our perceptions and behaviors. A great example of why we should continue to push for the education of crap detection skills is the phenomenon of recontextualized media. If I’m being honest, one of my biggest fears is sharing something that ends up being fake/recontextualized media. So many people in the United States watched and shared that clip without ever wondering what the context was, where the original video had come from, or who posted the clip and what their agenda was. This led to the mass propagation of something that was misconstrued. It was interesting to note that “unfazed by fact checking and not subject to platform mitigation efforts, campaign participants continued to share the misleading clip” (Dreyfuss, 2020, para. 34). They are simply trying to lure as many people as they can, people who haven’t been educated in media literacy skills. It also plays into the idea that people will choose and propagate media that reinforce their beliefs. This was the case for the fake articles and fake websites that show up on Facebook, as well. Individuals who benefit or agree from the fake news are less likely to dig deeper, when in reality they could easily just click on the links and see that simply by the looks of the articles and websites, they are fake. It is so important for society to have a crap detection toolkit under their belt. However, I do agree with boyd (2017) in that there are many kinks to work out in the way that we teach and engage with media literacy skills; more specifically, “how we make sense of information, whom we trust, and how we understand our own role in grappling with information” (para. 14). These are important factors to consider, and our society would benefit from more people understanding this and creating a change within themselves to become more literate in terms of their media consumption. ### Fri Oct 7 - Cooperation According to Martin Nowak’s (2011) book *SuperCooperators*, the most effective way for individuals to cooperate is by establishing positive interactions between them (p. 60). The idea of cooperation being exacerbated by positive interaction can also be proven by the concept of social grooming, which is introduced by Joseph Reagle (2015) as “an activity through which alliances are forged and disputes resolved”. In the example that Reagle was referring to, primates secured their survival and evolution by grooming their peers. However, this idea can also be applied to human interactions and explain some of the mechanisms that lead to cooperation. Additionally, Nowak posits that sufficient information and reputation can also influence cooperation between individuals. Cooperation is missing from societies in which a “thirst for retaliation and dominance” runs rampant (Nowak, 2011, p.57). Direct reciprocity enables this cycle, and inhibits others’ motivation to cooperate. Individuals are also not inclined to cooperate when they feel as though the cost for cooperation was higher than the rewards and advantages that it would bring. This thinking, however, is selfish, and only harms our society in the long run. I think that despite some of the downfalls and disadvantages of technology and social media, it is a great medium for promoting and engaging with cooperation. Since media facilitates the transmission of information, individuals can make informed decisions on the best way to help in a given situation. However, it is when information is coupled with the reputation effect that our online networks are most powerful in promoting cooperation. When something major happens and it is all over the news and social media, individuals are quick to repost information about what’s going on and how to help, even if they aren’t necessarily taking action to improve the situation. The publicness of our online worlds holds us accountable, in a sense. We like to be seen doing the right thing, and even though sometimes our intentions are not the most genuine, this can lead to widespread public cooperation! ### Fri Oct 15 - Haters *Why does digital communication give rise to such toxic behavior, including that of haters and that seen in “bully battles”?* There has been much talk about technology and the online world being much like a double-edged sword. The ease and accessibility that the net provides in acquiring information and communicating with others can be beneficial, but under the wrong circumstances, these features can also be harmful. In the James Wellemeyer article on online bullying, he describes how fake accounts and bots have become such a prevalent problem within social media platforms. Most of these accounts are created for the sole reason of being able to hide your identity behind a screen and dishing out hate. In chapter 5 of his book *Reading the Comments*, Joseph Reagle depicts various cases of online anonymous trolls, which makes the case that online anonymity creates disinhibition and gives people a greater sense of power. I would argue that anonymity also makes it easier for individuals to dehumanize those at the other end of the screen, which promotes the culture of online bullying. I know when I was in high school, we had a lot of issues with the platform [Ask.fm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ask.fm) because of its anonymous feature. Students went overboard with some of the comments that they would leave on others' pages, and a lot of my classmates even went to see the school psychologist about this. Additionally, there is a growing number of online communities whose sole purpose is promoting hate and chaos. Individuals who may engage with some of these communities and see this behavior are more susceptible to imitating it. These communities, on the other hand, may feel validated by the growing presence of trolls, which enables the cycle of online bullying. Reagle brings up a good point about individuals within these communities, which is that they shed their sense of accountability by hiding behind the identity of the group. This means that it is more challenging for them to stop this behavior since they do not feel fully responsible. ### Tues Oct 18 - Exam Review *Multiple Choice Questions* 1. Which of the following is NOT one of the six productive practices of learning? A. Elaboration B. Highlighting C. Summarizing D. Spaced Practice 2. Which of these definitions best describes "reputation silos"? A. A filter bubble controlled by commercial interests B. Effect that forces people to double down on their beliefs C. The result of our own choices and the algorithm that dictate what we see online D. A filter bubble in which we forget other's perspectives and assume everyone thinks like us *Short Essay Questions* 3. What are the two types of key encryption systems and what is their purpose? 4. When considering the trustworthiness of a certain website, how might we triangulate its credibility? Describe each consideration. *Multiple Choice Answers* 1. B. Highlighting 2. A. A filter bubble controlled by commercial interests *Short Essay Answers* 3. The two key encryption systems are public key encryption and private key encryption. The public key is used to encrypt plain text to “ciphertext” (which is essentially gibberish), and the private key is used for decrypting that gibberish back into plain text. The client and server are then able to communicate securely, encrypting and decrypting each others’ messages using their keys, with a snooper just seeing gibberish going back and forth. 4. Individuals are able to determine a website's credibility by engaging in CRAP detection skills: context/currency, reliability, author, and purpose. When examining a website, it is important to take note of where it was published and what the timing of this was. Informing ourselves about who the author is, what their sources are, and understanding their point of view should be our next step. Finally, we must also seek to understand why the source was created and who the intended audience is. This strategy will leave us with a better sense of whether the page is to be trusted or not.