---
# System prepended metadata

title: '<span style="color:#ad5cad; font-family: ''Georgia''; font-size: .9em;">Reading Responses (Set One)</span>'

---

# <span style="color:#ad5cad; font-family: 'Georgia'; font-size: .9em;">Reading Responses (Set One)</span>
## <span style="color:#ad5cad; font-family: 'Georgia'; font-size: .9em;">Reading Responses 5 out of 5</span>

### 17 Jan - Superconnected

This chapter of *Superconnected* focuses on a specific idea we've touched on when discussing digital natives, which is our engagement with technology and how that affects our interactions with others and our mental well-being. Whereas the Evans' and Robertson' piece titled “The Four Phases of the Digital Natives Debate" discussed how the effects of technology on the new generation are mostly negative, Mary Chayko gives the debate much more research. She dives into the effect of the overwhelming advancement of technology over the last few decades, explaining technology and its connection to dependency in human relationships, dependency on technology, transmedia entertainment, multitasking, and mental health. Chayko acknowledges that the effects are somewhat blurry since the human species is not a monolith and since these topics are hard things to quantify in exact terms. 

One section that caught my eye was the one titled "Multitasking and Attention Span." Chayko mentions that there is worry that attention spans are decreasing because of technology and because it is so easy to engage with things online in a quick manner (eg. scrolling through a friend's social media page or easily finding a summary of a book online). Thus, it becomes harder to interact with a longer task (p. 184-5). 

This reminded me of my research into digital rhetoric, which deals specifically with something called the *attention economy*. This term takes into acknowledgment that Chayko's concept of attention span is true, and that since the volume and speed of the media, materials, and concepts that are being encountered online are so abundant, attention is what every digital rhetor online is competing for. Digital rhetoric also takes Chayko's concept of how easy online engagement is into account. This is called being *ephemeral*, like how Snapchat stories only exist for 24 hours, or how tweets get buried underneath each other because tweets can only be up to 280 characters and so many people are tweeting at one time.  

While reading this, I did the "Online Intention" exercise, setting my alarm to go off in ten minutes. I was also listening to music, and had Twitter open in a separate tab. My goal was to read half of the twenty two pages, while also writing down notes in my Notion. Although I strayed at a few points to change a song or scroll on Twitter for ten to twenty seconds, I still read more than half of the twenty two pages at the end of the ten minutes, while also taking notes. I was also listening to music the entire time, which is a form of multitasking. I feel like music helps me blocks out the rest of the physical world and focus on what I'm reading more. It is difficult to confidentally say that multitasking makes it harder for one to focus, as my form of multitasking is very helpful but might be annoying to others. Even Chayko admits many of these technological effects are not quantifiable, so how do we go about fixing an issue that doesn't pose like one to some, especially if it is actually helpful to some students?

### 7 Feb - Social Has a Shape: Why Networks Matter

I was born in 2002, so right as I could even slightly understand the world around me, I was interested in technology. As a shy child, I found that it was much easier to talk and create connections online than it was in person. My parents' families all lived in Brazil as well so the minute I could speak, I was being placed in front of Skype calls to talk to relatives. Both of these things developed into an understanding that connection online was just as simple and genuine as those face to face.  

In a chapter titled "Social Has a Shape: Why Networks Matter," Howard Rheingold discusses how the digital age has altered our relationships with those around us, or even across from us. As he says on page 193,

> Draw a circle. Around its perimeter, draw dots. Then connect each dot to its two immediate neighbors, one on either side. This is what is known as a highly clustered (dense) network...[Now] imagine a circle with seven billion dots on it. Now draw just a few random connections between dots and other dots in other parts of the network, crossing to other parts of the circle instead of restricting the connections to immediate neighbors. It turns out that introducing a relatively small number of random distant links in a highly clustered network transforms it into a small-world network.

![image alt](https://i.imgur.com/DpAPpS4.png =380x500)

The internet thus makes it much easier to connect and maintain relationships with those farther than you (like my parents Skyping their distant family) or create relationships with newer people (like me using the internet to form relationships with online strangers). Rheingold labels the latter *networked individualism*. This differs from grouped networking because a group is comprised of individuals who know each other and there aren't many connections to people who don't know each other. *Networked Individualism* occurs when a network contains members who don't know most other members and tends to be shorter lived, as connections aren't as strong between members. This reminded me of online fandoms, which can live on any social media site. People in these groups are usually fixated on a specific shared interest, which Rheingold calls *homophily,* but these connections can fizzle out quickly because people tend to jump from interest to interest online, or because people clash in beliefs outside of that one shared interest. I don't know if it's an exact replica of what he is explaining, but it seemed like many of the attributes of fandom culture coincide with *networked individualism*. 

### 10 Feb - Alienated: You fail it! Your skill is not enough!" | "Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts

In elementary school, every year during October, my teachers would spend a whole morning period passing out information on bullying in schools, with plastic bracelets that read, "Stop bullying" or "Speak Up." By middle school, the spotlight on bullying awareness in my school hadn't changed, but information on cyberbullying had been added. At that age, I used my household computer rarely, so I had little experience with what cyberbullying looked like until I got a phone at 13. Since then, I have grown accustomed to using social media or video sharing websites at almost every hour of the day and have seen many accounts of internet hate with my own eyes. In my opinion, internet hate is so prevalent because those who are hostile on the internet have security by not having to engage face to face. Instead, they can hide behind their electronic device, perhaps halfway across the world from the person they're bullying.

Both "Alienated: You fail it! Your skill is not enough!" and "Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts" illustrate how often this harassment occurs online, and how serious the hate can become. In middle school, we were taught about cyberbullying in a direct way, like other students commenting nasty things under another student's post. These articles instead center around strangers who wield words to other strangers online. Reagle cites Danielle Keats Citron in his book, who discusses how marginalized groups tend to be the victims of these hate groups online:

> ...Although men are targets of cyber-harassment, it is “beyond dispute” that “being a woman raises one’s risk of cyber harassment” as may being a woman of color or lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: “Nearly all of the victims I’ve talked to have been female.”

This reminded me of similar occurrences in the Twitch (a live streaming service) sphere where marginalized groups get "hate raided." *Raiding* is a feature of Twitch that allows streamers, who are about to end their live stream, to send their viewers to another streamer, which gives them a sudden influx of viewers. This is a positive, until people figured out a way to use bots and instead send a raid of hate-spewing bots to anyone's live stream. This manifested into streamers, [usually part of the LGBTQ+ community or of color](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/clarissajanlim/twitch-suing-users-hate-raids-black-lgbtq-streamers), to suddenly have an unmanageable number of bots sending slurs and threats into their chats. 

"Facebook is now revealing how often users see bullying or harassing posts" discusses the growing amount of hate speech on Facebook, but Reagle discusses plenty of other sites where this hate speech can occur in his book. Both articles present situations that display a heightening of harassment online, but I feel like growing up, I was not taught to fear hate from strangers, but solely the students around me. These articles illustrate that this hate is everywhere, so how do we safely explain to the youth that the internet can be a dangerous breeding ground for hate speech directed towards them, but also an easy way for them to be taught how to direct hate speech at others? How do we keep young people of color, women, people of differing sexualities safe on the internet, and is there a way to make schools implement better awareness of cyber-harassment?  

### 17 Feb - Exam Review

### <span style="font-family: 'Georgia'; font-size: .8em;">Multiple Choice</span>

1. What is the number of relationships Dunbar roughly said one person has?
a. 100
b. 125
c. 150
d. 175
2. What were the four phases of the digital natives debate? 
a. Conception, Adaptation, Division, iGen
b. Conception, Reaction, Adaptation, Re-conceptualization
c. Conception, Reaction, Cohesion, Re-conceptualization
d. Conception, Reaction, Adaptation, iGen

### <span style="font-family: 'Georgia'; font-size: .8em;">Short Essay Questions</span>
3. Discuss the seven types of mis- or disinformation described in Claire Wardle's “Understanding Information Disorder" and how they differ from each other. Give one example for one of them. 
4. What is a filter bubble? How can they be harmful? How can they be avoided on the internet?

### <span style="font-family: 'Georgia'; font-size: .8em;">Answers</span>

1. The answer is C. Dunbar said that one person roughly has 150 social relationships. Dunbar discusses that there are different types of relationships or connections one has, from a family relationships to an acquaintance. The 150 number has to do with people one keeps contact with and can track relationships for. 
2. The answer is B. "Conception" is when the digital native term is created and the discussion surrounding digital natives/immigrants start. "Reaction" was when a moral panic started. "Adaptation" is centered around newer conversations centered on Gen Z, multitasking and attention span. Lastly, "Re-conceptualization" opens the door for more diverse people to enter the conversation. The term iGen is born, which is the generation shaped by the smartphone and the rise of social media. This generation grew up slower, more obsessed with safety, and less patient with inequality. People bring up more issues that technology has created: high screen time, mental health struggles, more difficulty making friends. Here is a great breakdown of each phase, the years they occurred, and each leading scholar:
![image alt](https://i.imgur.com/87ionlF.png =700x570)
3. There are seven types of mis- or disinformation. The first is **satire/parody**, which is used in a deliberate way to spread false information. Even if people know at first that it is satire, as it gets passed along, the satire can be lost. **False connection/clickbait** content is when news outlets use sensational language to drive clicks, but this compelling language is lost as the readers open the site. **Misleading content** takes varied forms. It can manifest itself when stories are reframed in headlines, when parts of quotes are used to support a wider point, when statistics are presented in a biased way, etc. **False content** is content that is genuine but has been reframed in dangerous ways. **Imposter content** is misleading content that uses well-known logos or the news from established figures or journalists. **Manipulated content** is when an aspect of genuine content is altered (usually involves some sort of photoshop). An example of this would be if the audio of a video of a politician meeting fans got edited so that they were insulting the people around them. **Fabricated content** is 100% false.
4. A filter bubble is a phenomenon in which the algorithms online show the user results that align with their usual searches and beliefs refers to the results of the algorithms that dictate what we encounter online. It is harmful because it will give the user information biased to the user's already documented beliefs, and this makes it hard for the user to find information outside of their comfort area. To avoid filter bubbles, one can use ad-blockers and read online news with a myriad of political beliefs or life experiences/perspectives. One can also get information from not only entertainment or social media like Twitter but education sources like literature, documentaries, etc.

### 24 Feb - Gender, Communication, & Contribution

As a queer latine woman, I am not new to being degraded in space primarily comprised of (usually white and cishet) men. I was insanely nerdy as I grew up, but luckily, I didn't join online discussion groups for my interests until I was in high school, and by then I knew which spaces were more open for a voice like mine and which spaces were absolutely not. "The Open Source Identity Crisis" and "The Actual Science of James Damore’s Google Memo" were tedious reads for me because despite online spaces being seemingly more accessible in the last decade, these articles made me wonder if that's actually true or if the rhetoric around this conversation has just advanced. [In response to criticism of his memo](https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320) about "unfair" diversity at Google, James Damore said:
> "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes...Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber."

This upset me because Damore's main point centers on the contrast in personality differences in men and women, which he says are due to biology, and that Google is failing to use these studies to divide women and men "accurately." Last semester, I had a class called "The 21st Century Workplace," and we discussed the change of the workplace and primarily how technology played into this change. [This study](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1016/S0277-2833(01)80021-2/full/html) that we looked at focuses on women in the financial industry, which is heavily male dominant. Like Damore suggests, women fail more in this industry than their male counterparts. However, this isn't because of some biological difference that makes it impossible for them to work in stem-related fields. Instead, it is because of the rampant sexism that exists in the industry. Despite having the same knowledge as the men working with them, the women interviewed in this article discuss the difficulty of entering the same networks as the men to generate enough business. To break through into these networks with the help of the men, the women felt forced to emphasize their femininity, usually partaking in stereotypes. If they failed to network correctly, these women were demoted and lost pay, so this risk further pushed them into emphasizing their femininity.

The “Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences.” continued with this line of thinking in regard to gender differences but shifted focus to social networking applications. I was mainly interested in what the article had to say about the way men and women view relationships online, and perhaps what this means for Dunbar's Number. Dunbar's Number is the concept that we can all maintain, at maximum, 150 relationships with others. This article says that on SNSs, women are more likely to use SNSs to keep in touch with people. Men, on the contrary, are more likely to reach out to new people and create new relationships. Dunbar's Number was established in the 1990s and I wonder if the creation of SNSs to cement existing relationships or make new ones makes us all more susceptible to having higher numbers, especially if men are connecting with new people. 