Final blog post

Twitter:

At first it was very challenging to come up with how we were going to incorporate Twitter into our presentation. We first considered live tweeting, but felt that that would cause our presentation to be too time restricted and it would not have worked. We would have had to time everything perfectly, and if something was off, then it would have been off for the entire presentation. I found it very difficult to use the computer to transition from powerpoint to Twitter, so that would have most definitely thrown off our timing. Instead, we made a timeline (on our timeline) of Twitter, as well as retweeted some notorious tweets. We basically used Twitter to tell the story, as well as show unique features, such as Vines and polls.
    A major difficulty I found was with the transitions from Powerpoint to Twitter. It took a lot of time up, which was our fault. (Especially when there were videos to play). We also found it difficult to tweet a timeline, considering the tweets go on the feed in the opposite order. We basically had to be really careful what we tweeted and when, so that we did not forget something and have to start all over. It would have been nice if Twitter had a feature that let you move tweets around on your own Timeline so that they were in the order you wanted them to be in. The lack of that feature I think hindered our presentation. There were some tweets out of order, but for the most part I think we did a good job. Overall, this timeline of Twitter worked out well. We probably could have spent more time planning our tweets, which would have minimized this problem. Lastly, if twitter wasn't 140 characters or less tweets, we probably could have just done what was on the Powerpoint on Twitter. However, that is what Twitter is known for, and I don't think it should change for the sake of our presentation!
   

Week 12

Paul Wilson was a guest speaker this week for our class, and he talked about the dark web. I became much more informed with how the dark web works, as well as why it even exists. The military created the dark web to form private networks. However, it got out of control when people learned how to access it. Now, the dark web is a hidden network that is home to many, many unthinkable things. We all know how massive the public web is, and Mr. Wilson explained that the dark web is even more massive. Some examples of activities that are enabled by the dark web are the solicitation of child-pornography, drug trafficking, human trafficking, and even terrorism. The appeal to the dark web is simple: people can do illegal things without being tracked by law enforcement. People making purchases, perhaps for a hitman or drugs, use currency called BitCoins. I had never heard of this before, but it shocked me to see just how separate of a world the dark web is. This lecture really opened my eyes and made me see how terrible of a place the world can be. What is very scary is that our law enforcement have no way to protect us from the terrorism acts and plots that are on the dark web. It is so disturbing to know that all of this stuff is going on all the time, and we have no idea or no way to stop it. I really enjoyed Paul Wilson's lecture in class; I learned stuff I never would have known, and also got a glimpse into how dangerous the Internet (not just the dark web) can be!

Week 11

     Today was probably the most interesting class yet, in my opinion. We were discussing the negative aspects of the Internet and social media. For example, we watched a video about what all media is doing to us. It said all of us view, on average, about 10 hours and 45 minutes of media EACH day. This includes television, radio broadcasts, movies, music, magazines, and social media/Internet. The point of the video was that for something that we invest so much of our time into, we are not watching things that are helping to construct our morals. For instance, I have yet to see a show on Netflix (besides maybe on Netflix Kids) that does not have curse words, show nudity, or drug use/alcohol consumption. Children who are still learning about how to interact with others and constructing their morals are being exposed to this, and in turn thinking that this is how the world should be. The video made a really great point. There are half naked women all over media (all attractive, for the most part) which teaches women that they are not good enough unless they have a nice body or pretty face. On the other hand, it teaches men that women are just their bodies and nothing more. On top of it all, there are celebrities that young girls look up to, that portray this same idea. For instance, Kim Kardashian posts nudes on her social media, which makes the girls that look up to her believe that they must look like her or be beautiful to be successful and noticed. Then, the celebrities arguments are that they should not have to feel ashamed of their bodies and by posting these nudes, they are "liberating" themselves. There is nothing liberating that is going to come from posting those things, because all that teaches us is that girls need to have a body like that, and boys need to find a girl who looks like that (regardless of personality, brains, etc.). As long as this media is what we are exposed to--and it is literally everywhere--nothing is going to change.

Week 10

     At the end of class this week, we were asked the question: "should you be allowed to make an anonymous Facebook account?" I have a couple thoughts about this question on anonymity on social media. Basically, this goes back to an earlier discussion we had about social media being used for both good and bad. As long as you can use it for doing good in the world and making prosocial changes, others can oppositely use it for bullying, forming radical groups, or participating in illegal activities such as watching child pornography. I think anonymity follows the same guideline. There are some cases in which an anonymous profile is necessary, like the case of Wael Ghonim (the author of Revolution 2.0). Ghonim launched an anonymous Facebook page protesting against the brutal regimes that were in power in the Middle East in 2011. Ghonim was protecting himself from these people by hiding his identity, as well as taking a stand for change. He was using this anonymous Facebook for good. The downside to anonymity is that a protester with no face lacks something. It is difficult for us to follow or trust a person who could quite possibly not even exist. One may think a person is remaining anonymous so that they can back out at any point when things get dangerous, and nobody will come after them. However, when you stand up together and et your identity be known, then you are all in. So, in this way, anonymity can be used for good.
       On the other hand, anonymity in social media can be dangerous. For instance, I would never be friends with someone on Facebook if I did not recognize them, let alone if they had no picture, nothing about them, or were completely anonymous. You never know who you are connecting with behind that screen. Another thing that is common with anonymity on social media is bullying. Anonymity gives bullies an outlet to hurt others without any repercussion on them because their identity is unknown. It's easier to post something awful to someone else when you have no face. I bet a decent amount of these Internet bullies would never say what they say if their picture and name was on their profile. My point in all of this is basically the same point I arrive to every class. Social media can be used pro-socially and  anti-socially--and it is our choice.

Week 9

This week in class, we talked a lot about the amplification of prosocial behavior on social media. Specifically, we discussed the ALS ice-bucket challenge that went viral on social media last summer. If you were challenged by someone, you either had to donate $100 to the ALS charity or dump a bucket of ice water over your head. We discussed whether dumping a bucket of ice water on your head actually benefits ALS or not. I think yes. The reason I think these kind of things are beneficial to a cause is simply because the awareness it brings. Yes, dumping ice water on your head is not going to cure ALS, but it will bring awareness to what the degenerative disease actually is. Of those people that see it and become aware, some may donate, some may do the challenge and then challenge others who will choose to donate, and some will do both. On the other hand, there are people like Mike Rowe who will choose not to participate. His reasoning was that all of the money is going to fight this one single disease and taking away the money to fight all the thousands of other diseases people are suffering from. I understand his point, but I don't necessarily agree. So much of the money donated to the ALS fund would have not otherwise been donated to another charity. Many of the people only donated because they heard about it or were challenged. I would say most people did not think "well instead of donating my yearly amount to this other charity, I think I will give it to the ALS fund instead." So much of that money donated would have otherwise been spent on frivolous things, not other charities. 

     Anyway, I think social media is a GREAT was to amplify prosocial behavior. Even if someone is not giving their own money, they are spreading the word across the world that will reach others who will actually donate. Social media has not made people more susceptible to performing mass acts of kindness; it has simply given us a way to come together and do it. 

Week 8

This week we discussed amplifying prosocial behaviors and "slacktivism". First, let's start with this idea of amplifying prosocial behaviors. The internet (social media) allows us to connect so easily with other people around the globe that share the same interests as us. In Shirky's novel "Here Comes Everybody," he makes some good points. The easy access to social media and connecting to others who share similar interests as us can be both good and bad. Some people form groups that help organize movements towards (for lack of a better phrase) making the world a better place. As much as people can do good through forming these groups, others can do equally as bad. For instance, Shirky brought up a great example of the "pro-Ana" group on the internet. This group is where girls can join together by a common interest--anorexia. So, this group acts as a security net and support system that keeps this disease propagating. Girls feel better about what most people frown upon because it is always easier to go against the norm when you have others behind you. So, as long as social media acts as a platform for good groups to form, it is also a platform for bad groups. So, is the amount of good worth the bad? I don't know.
     Another thing we talked about was this thing called "slacktivism." Basically, slacktivism is when people try to be activists without putting in any effort. For instance, it is super easy to share a post regarding all of the starving people around the world, but is that post that you shared going to keep a child from going to bed hungry? No. I do think there are cases where sharing a post is as much as you can do. One cannot do anything about world hunger in Africa if they are here in the United States (in most cases). So, by sharing, it allows more and more people to come together and bring attention to an issue, that perhaps, someone else could do something about. So, sometimes all we can do is share a post or show our support. The real meaning behind slacktivism is the person who is sharing posts about the amount of starving people in their community, yet they are laying on the couch and not actually doing anything about it. It's so simple to share something or let your followers/friends know how heart broken you are about something, but it is another when you actually take time our of your day to work at a soup kitchen or send clothes to a homeless shelter. If everyone acted on the feelings they portray on social media about issues, then I truly do think the world would be a better place (as cliche as that sounds).

Week 7

     Last night we had a very interesting class. We talked about a topic that I feel I have a lot to say about… pornography. We read a couple articles, which basically all had an agenda leading to the same point: the kids in our society are being exposed to porn at younger and younger ages. For example, my mom is a middle school teacher and she teaches the seventh grade. I could not count the times she has come home in a funk because of the things she hears her students say (mostly pertaining to sex). I remember when I was in middle school, I vaguely knew what sex was (it made babies). I wore basketball shorts to school so I could play harder outside during breaks, I had braces (with springs), I thought boys were gross. These days, middle school girls look older than me, and middle school boys know more than me (not in the academic sense, if you know what I mean). There is even a meme I have seen where it says "me at 13" with some cute, dorky little girl beside a picture that says "13 year olds now"with a girl who looks like she's going out to a club.
     My mom does say that she has some students that still have their innocence about them. So, it is possible to raise your children with some sort of morals. However, with phones it is hard to tell what curious kids are looking at in their rooms all by themselves, or at a sleepover with friends. Sometimes, it is not the parents who are doing something wrong. I think the problem stems from kids being introduced to sex through pornography. They are too immature to realize that what happens in porn is not actually what happens in the real world. Then, when the time comes that they choose to have sex, (which is younger, too) they are strongly disappointed that it was not like what they see on their phones and laptops. Pornography desensitizes these kids so much that nothing in reality will ever live up to their expectations. I believe this causes people to sleep around more (hoping to find someone who resembles the girl/guy in a porno), and have to find something--for lack of a better word--kinkier. This thing could be child pornography or sadism and masochism. I find this such a scary thought.
     I am a religious person, and I do have many of my morals stemming from my beliefs. Setting all of that aside, I still believe that this is a big problem in our society. Children should not be introduced to something that is meant to be special by porn stars on the internet. Parents need to talk to their kids and let them know what sex is and what pornography is, because they are different. Middle school is an age where kid's minds are still being shaped and they should not be shaped by the garbage they see on the internet. To sum up my point, I am going to use an idea that was in one of the articles we discussed. The mom was writing to her son to explain to him that if he wants to watch porn, she cannot stop him. However, she does not want him to base his expectations of his future partner on what he sees because he will never be satisfied. I think this is the approach that has to be taken these days. Children have so much access that we can never completely monitor what they see. Instead, we have to talk to them beforehand and take a preventative approach. In all likelihood, they will see pornography, but it is up to the parents to let their children know the difference.