---
# System prepended metadata

title: Reading Responses

---

# Reading Responses

#### Response #1 (1/24/20):
“We’re undoing the social fabric of our country through polarization, distrust, and self-segregation,” says Boyd in her article regarding the significance of fake news and the public’s lack of faith in the media realm as a whole.  But how did the prevalence of such blatant falsities become attractive to the masses? Are there preventative measures that we could ingrain into our society?

It’s a little too late for that.  Suffice to say, fake news has infiltrated global media, and there’s no way to remove it from our radar, unless it’s on our own volition. But what if we had all been aware of the “fake” in fake news from the start?  What if everyone had been given the skillset to detect fact from fiction, or even hyperbole? Would our political climate still be so divisive? I argue, yes, and so does Danah Boyd.  “People believe information that confirms their priors.” 

How can we stop people from ingesting fake news when they’re seeking it out? We can’t! But that doesn’t make our awareness of reality versus falsities any less important. It also doesn’t mean that companies in positions of power shouldn’t at least try to do their part in the expulsion of fake news.
	Facebook is an example of a gatekeeper with the ability to derail fake news from the public’s eye. Within the 2016 presidential election, 20 different hoax and misinformed websites regarding each candidate managed to generate 8,711,000 reactions, shares, and comments across the Facebook platform.  The company’s lenience of overt dishonesty brought in a significant amount of criticism from activists and political leaders involved in the election process. Since then, Facebook has gone on to add preventative measures to combat the influence of fake news, including a pop up “suggestion” that occurs when fake news is detected, warning the composer of previous third party disputes over their content. 

In conclusion, fake news has proved to be a force to be reckoned with, especially in regards to political campaigning.  However, hope is not yet lost! Morality is slowly making strides towards a more honest future of reporting.

#### Response #2 (1/28/20):
As students, teachers, and human beings, we are always looking for more knowledge to add to our bank.  Statistics, current events, anything that can make us feel more involved on a global scale, and assert some sort of worth via the concept of “intelligence.”  But is spitting out facts truly knowledge? “We are poor judges of when we are learning well and when we’re not,” or so says Brown (p.3). So although temporary memorization feels secure in the moment, the recollection of it will only last temporarily.  As we’ve learned, we can’t just take Brown’s word for it.  Cramming is a concept we’re constantly surrounded by in college, so why would it be so popular if it didn’t work? 

Because they’ve been “handed down to us” by the people that shaped our lives in the past (p.8). Misconceptions of learning did not begin today and will not cease either. Brown shows us through concrete evidence, that his point is in fact a valid one. He uses Pilot Matt, and his knowledge of how to combat a worst-case-scenario to exemplify just how crucial learning can be. When Pilot Matt is able to recall a variety of processes that could lead to a safe landing, Brown begs the question of how was Matt able to recall all of this in a moment of turmoil? He answers his own question: “learning is stronger when it matters, when the abstract is made concrete and personal.” (p. 11). 

This was my greatest takeaway from the incredible amount of information that Brown provided for us. Studying and quizzing yourself is how to physically improve learning, but the aforementioned statement helps us to emotionally or mentally improve learning, which is what I personally struggle with most.  Mindset can have the greatest impact if you let it, and can even help you save lives like Pilot Matt. Brown inspires his audience as individuals to improve their learning skillset on their own merit, because that’s what makes learning the most effective and retainable. 

#### Response #3 (2/4/20):
To say there is no hope for humanity, while warranted, ultimately proves a sense of ignorance and pessimism throughout the masses.  The reasons are vast and disheartening, however, that does not mean human morality is lost.  We see the social dilemma as an example of actively testing our principles.  There are various types, each catered to a specific ethical quandary of sorts. The concept of “social traps” are most enticing, especially because it is incredibly applicable to a college student or others in that age range. The idea of being taken advantage of but putting that aside for the good of the “friend group” occurs in real life.  It pairs with the question that most people have been asked since their youth: “Do you want to be a leader or a follower?”  The biggest fallback of social traps (besides a lack of overall individualism) is that there is no option to be both a leader and a follower.  A multitude of people exist in the circumstantial, so labelling someone as a leader or a follower is degrading in and of itself.  But this theory isn’t the only one that’s limiting.

Dunbar’s Number hypothesizes that humans have a finite capability of maintaining relationships.  The magic number? 150.  For some, this number seems tiny, a mere fraction of one’s socialsphere.  But for others, the idea of sustaining 150 relationships, or even interacting with 150 people is incredibly anxiety inducing. So why must we define the black and white if humans as a whole live in the grey? Well, I assert that humanity likes to reason for their shortcomings. Like Nowak explained in Why We Help, “only humans have full blown language” (p.38).  Because we cannot stop ourselves from communicating and analyzing, we shift the rhetoric towards a place of us versus them.  One type of human versus another, rather than a cohesive population.  We stress our differences to emphasize our individuality, when that same persistence could go towards finding commonalities from person to person, ultimately leading to a more equal and just society.

#### Response #4 (2/11/20):
Bitcoin is a concept I’ve never really understood, and yet, dumb it down to the reading level of a child, and it can be taught to the masses.  The reason this in particular holds some sort of importance is due to the relevance of it in our day to day lives.   We use money in consistent interactions we have, so much so that one can’t really survive without it.  So how does bitcoin turn into that necessity?  It doesn’t “turn into it” per say, but it does however hold its own value, similar to that of physical capital. Like dollars or quarters, bitcoins exist in limited amounts as to retain their value.  On a more anecdotal note, this process is similar to that which we see in fashion (one of my other fields of interest).  Clothes get burned on a year to year basis from high fashion corporations so that the exclusivity and value of the clothes remain.  Bitcoin only introduces us to a much bigger e-sphere of sorts called “the Dark Web.”

The dark web is enticing solely based on title- people want to know what it is that makes the web, well, dark. The fact that held the biggest shock value personally was when the article in the Rolling Stone specified that the dark web was created by the U.S. Government itself, and if that wasn’t enough, is still financed by it to this day. “As an instrument for both activists and criminals,” is the most telling line seen in the article.  The dark web, which is reached via an anonymity software, isn’t just a place for hackers and cyber-villains to plot and steal.  It’s home to those oppressed on such a level that the use of the internet would be in violation.  So what do we do now? As students, members of the Northeastern community and human beings, how do we combat cyber reality in our realities? First step, we educate ourselves on the issues, and also the potential benefits of the web, and all of its children. 

#### Response #5 (2/14/20):
1. The role of TCP is to…
a)	Request a web resource
b)	Translate host names to IP addresses
c)	Reliably deliver data
d)	Move data through routers


2. Which of these is NOT effective practice?
a)	Elaboration
b)	Rereading
c)	Summarizing
d)	Varied practice

3. Explain three ways you could differentiate a fake news article from a credible one.
4. What are the key differences between a filter bubble, echo chamber, and reputation silo?


Answers
1.	The answer is C, because TCP is in fact in charge of reliably delivering data.
2.	The answer is a little more complicated because although rereading seems like a good practice, it is actually quite ineffective.
3.	The first thing to check is an author; do they have one listed? If not, usually a red flag because there’s a specified reasoning for not putting the author’s name under the title.  Second, do they include references?  If an author is making large claims and throwing in statistics without any proof or source that it came from, it’s more than likely that there are no references. Lastly, is there evidence of bias?  Bias can be tricky, because to a certain extent, our opinions are, at their core, a culmination of our biases.  However, there is an obvious manner of writing that occurs when an author is bias to a fault.  If they do little to prove their points, break down the opposing side of the argument with aggression rather than understanding, bias is probably at play. 
4.	Filter bubbles refer to the algorithms that promote homophily to individual clients or users. Filter bubbles face criticism for the simple fact they constrain what comes into our perspective online.  A result of filter bubbles is echo chambers.  Echo chambers refers to the consequential extremism that often arises out of filter bubbles.  Reputation silos are a type of filter bubble controlled by commercial or corporate interests.
