Paper #3 Final Draft 12/11/18

Erika Bishop

Professor Werry

RWS 100

12 December 2018

Digital Natives Vs Digital Immigrants

Did you grow up with computers and cell phones surrounding you or did you live in a time without them? There has been a debate over the past few years over the terms digital natives vs digital immigrants. Digital natives are people who were born in a time when technology surrounded them whereas digital immigrants are people who grew up without technology and were just recently introduced to it. Some people agree that because digital natives grew up with technology, they automatically know everything about it. Others, like Danah Boyd, disagree and think digital natives actually do not know a lot of very important skills about technology. Danah Boyd specializes in researching how technology intertwines with society. She later wrote the book It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens to record all of her findings from research. Boyd believes that there are many problems with those terms. She thinks that calling the youth digital natives decreases equality among the people because we assume that young people know everything about technology that we disinclude them from all learning opportunities. In this paper I will analyze Boyds point of view about how she disagrees with the terms digital natives and digital immigrants and challenge it with an outside text that supports and includes all of the aspects of those two terms. I will also look at Boyds claim that the youth needs to develop digital literacy skills and expand on that with an outside source that explains in detail the skills that all young people should know. Finally I will look at how not knowing certain media skills can lead to bad things happening.

The two terms digital native and digital immigrants have sparked debate within our community. After reading a chapter out of Danah Boyd’s book, I learned that just because today’s youth was born surrounded by cell phones and computers doesn’t mean they know the ins and outs of every aspect of technology. She believes this creates a divide between the two categories because society places digital natives and digital immigrants into two separate places in the community. The first category being that young people have all the knowledge about technology, and the second being older people who are clueless and unhelpful when it comes to technology. Boyd points out that “it obscures the uneven distribution of technological skills and media literacy across the youth population, presenting an inaccurate portrait of young people as uniformly prepared for the digital era and ignoring the assumed level of privilege required to be “native.”” (Boyd 179). She points out that because of these assumptions that the youth has all the knowledge about the internet, they aren’t getting the proper education on them. She also states that because of this, society is creating a loop because the teachers are actively participating in inequality of technology because some youth does not have as great access to it than others.   From personal experience, I agree that youth does not know everything about the internet because I believe mostly every website I see and I cannot tell the difference between biased or fake websites. I think it is important to assume everyone knows nearly nothing about the internet because then everyone can have the same learning opportunities. Ofer Zur, a licensed psychologist, and Azzia Walker, author of the book Therapy in the Digital Era, worked together to write an article about digital natives and digital immigrants. Ofer Zur and Azzia Walker created an article, “On Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives: How the Digital Divide Affects Families, Educational Institutions, and the Workplace,” that challenges Boyds argument by showing all the elements to digital natives and digital immigrants. These authors believe that youth automatically have a greater advantage than elders because they grew up with technology surrounding them. In the article they talk about the different categories of being a digital native and a digital immigrant. They point out that [w]hile most digital natives are tech-savvy by virtue of their being born around technology, others do not have a knack for technology and computers, or even an interest or inclination to learn more.” This shows that they expanded on these two terms in their article. Zur and Walker believe that digital immigrants can be separated into avoiders (people who avoid technology altogether), reluctant adopters (people who realize technology is a part of society but engaging in it feels unnatural), and enthusiastic adopters (people who do their best to keep up with natives on technology). They also believe that digital natives can be separated into avoiders (people who do not feel the need to be technologically active), minimalists (people who only use technology when it feels necessary), and enthusiastic participants (people who thoroughly engage in the use of technology). This is a completely different view of technology and challenges Boyds point. By separating digital native and digital immigrants into several categories, it captures all sorts of people and their stances on technology. Boyd on the other hand disregards those terms in total because she doesn’t believe that the youth are experts just based off their time of birth. Boyd finds it naive to think children know everything about technology because she “often found that teens must fend for themselves to make sense of how technologies work and how information spreads.” (Boyd 182).  This shows why society should not place the youth and the elders in different categories when it comes to social media because in reality, children don’t know much about technology at all according to some studies Boyd created that will be talked about in the next paragraph. Overall Boyd disagrees with the terms digital native and digital immigrants whereas Zur and Walker think digital immigrants and digital natives are supposed to be divided into separate categories.

Being born into a society where the internet surrounds you can lead to many assumptions that the youth has all the skills and knowledge about it just because they grew up with it. According to Boyd, the youth actually has little to no real awareness about how the internet actually works. She simply states that “[t]eens may make their own media or share content online, but this does not mean that they inherently have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume” (Boyd 177). She also points out that becoming literate on a certain subjects takes time and effort regardless of how old you are. Simple skills like knowing when something is biased or fake, understanding algorithms, and knowing how to fact check are important things that most teenagers have no idea how to do. Boyd believes that this is important because these are critical skills that are needed to understand the internet from day to day. A director of blended and networked learning, Mike Caulfield, has been working in educational technology since 1977. He is very interested and determined in changing the way digital literacy is taught. Mike Caulfield’s article “How “News Literacy” Gets the Web Wrong” extends Boyds argument by providing education about how to evaluate unfamiliar sites. He provides three main tips and then extends on each of those. Caulfield says the simplest way to do it is to “[c]heck for previous fact-checking work, go upstream to the source, [and] read laterally.” The main outtake from these pointers is to “check for previous work until there is no more previous work, get as close to the original as you can until you can get no closer, and read laterally until you understand the source.” This set of skills is important to know for many things in day to day life such as reading the news or writing a school paper. Most students, according to Boyd, do not even know what the  “difference between a web browser and the internet” is. This just confirms that students do not know nearly any important skills about the internet that people like Caulfeild can teach them. By providing people with information about how to differentiate real or fake or biased sites it helps our society grow into a better place all around. Boyd believed digital literacy and having the correct knowledge about technology is extremely important for everyone to know. Boyd interviewed several students about the website wikipedia and nearly all of the children replied with the answer that their teachers told them it was an unreliable source to use for research. Boyd was fascinated by the false information teachers have given to children because she believes that “[w]ikipedia isn’t simply a product of knowledge; it’s also a record of the process by which people share and demonstrate knowledge” and “[w]ikipedia can be a phenomenal educational tool, but few educators I met knew how to use it constructively.” (Boyd 188-189). This quote shows that the youth is not being taught the correct digital literacy skills necessary to navigate the internet properly. This also connects back to Caulfield because websites like his can really help today’s youth learn things that are important about the internet. All in all Boyd thinks that young people are not properly educated when it comes to technological skills even if society believes they are. Caulfield’s article extends on that by providing specific skills that Boyd believes all people, not just youth, should know.

As I talked about in the paragraph above, having digital literacy skills is extremely important for day to day use of the internet. Skills such as being able to tell the difference between a fake news site and a real one is very important. Boyd points out that “[i]t is dangerous to assume that [anyone is] automatically informed” (Boyd 177). By using the word dangerous, it gets the readers to realize that this isn’t just a small problem, but it is causing dangerous things to happen around the world. An article written by Cecilia Kang and Adam Goldman called “In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns” extends on the danger point that Boyd makes. The article talks about how a man read a fake news website that he thought was real saying that “Comet Ping Pong, a pizza restaurant in northwest Washington, was harboring young children as sex slaves as part of a child-abuse ring led by Hillary Clinton.” In result of this, he brought an illegal weapon to the pizza place in search of these children. As a result of this man not being educated on how to tell whether a website was fake or real, he got arrested. Thankfully in this case nobody was hurt, but if people don’t get the right education on digital literacy like Boyd thinks they should, then occurrences like this one will continue to happen. This just shows that with all the fake websites out there, everyone needs to be educated on digital literacy. Society shouldn’t assume that one group of people automatically know more about the internet than the other because realistically everyone needs to learn more about the internet. If we want to make a change, then everyone need to ditch the terms digital native and digital immigrant and assume that everyone has the same understanding of the internet and then go on to learn from there.

After all my findings and research, many people have different views on whether to label the youth as digital natives and the older people digital immigrants. Danah Boyd believes that labeling people with these terms is wrong because the technological generation does not know every single aspect about technology. She also thinks that this creates digital inequality because when people assume that youth knows everything, they get left out of many important learning opportunities. Authors Ofer Zur and Azzia Walker use these terms but divide them into different categories based on how engaged a person is with social media. Their point of view challenges Boyds because they believe the use of the terms digital native and digital immigrant is very relevant into today’s society. Boyd also thinks that knowing digital literacy skills is very important for everyone to know. She also says that knowing how to properly use the internet and being able to tell if a website is fake or real is very important. If people aren’t educated then bad things can happen. Author Cecilia Kang and Adam Goldman go on to extend this point of Boyds because it talks about a man that read a fake news site and it resulted in him bringing illegal weapons to a wholesome pizza restaurant. Author Mike Caulfield extends the digital literacy point and talks about some of the most important skills that are needed for day to day use of the internet. All in all Boyd thinks that the terms digital natives and digital immigrants should be abandoned and everyone of all ages should be taught digital literacy skills to prevent bad things from happening and overall make the world a better place to live in.

 

Works Cited

 

Boyd, Danah. “Danah Boyd.” “Living and Learning with Social Media”, www.danah.org/.

 

Boyd, Danah. “The Social Lives of Networked Teens.” It’s Complicated, 2014, rws100wiki.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/99522203/boyd_literacy_digital_natives_OCR.pdf.

 

Caulfield, Mike. “Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers.” Pressbooks, Self-Published, 8 Jan. 2017, webliteracy.pressbooks.com/chapter/four-strategies/.

 

Goldman, Cecilia Kang and Adam. “In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html.
Zur, Ofer, and Azzia Walker. “On Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives: How the Digital Divide Affects Families, Educational Institutions, and the Workplace.” Zur Institute , 1995, http://www.zurinstitute.com/digital_divide.html.

Full Draft Paper 3

Erika Bishop

Professor Werry

RWS 100

12 December 2018

Digital Natives Vs Digital Immigrants

Were you born in a time where technology always existed or in a time where you lived without it? There has been a debate over the past few years over the terms digital natives vs digital immigrants. Digital natives are people who were born in a time when technology surrounded them whereas digital immigrants are people who grew up without technology and were just recently introduced to it. Some people agree that because digital natives grew up with technology, they automatically know everything about it. Others, like Danah Boyd, disagree and think digital natives actually do not know a lot of very important skills about technology. Danah Boyd specializes in researching how technology intertwines with society. She later wrote the book “ It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens” to record all of her findings from research. Danah believes that there are many problems with those terms. She thinks that calling the youth digital natives decreases equality among the people because we assume that young people know everything about technology that we disinclude them from all learning opportunities. In this paper I will analyze Boyds point of view on the terms digital natives and digital immigrants and challenge it with an outside text that includes all of the aspects of those terms. I will also look at Boyds claim that the youth needs to develop digital literacy skills and expand on that with an outside source that explains in detail the skills that all young people should know. Finally I will look at how not knowing certain media skills can lead to bad things happening.

The two terms digital native and digital immigrants have sparked debate within our community. After reading a chapter out of Danah Boyd’s book, I learned that just because today’s youth was born surrounded by cell phones and computers doesn’t mean they know the ins and outs of every aspect of technology. She believes this creates a divide between the two categories because society places digital natives and digital immigrants into two separate places in the community. The first category being that young people have all the knowledge about technology, and the second being older people who are clueless and unhelpful when it comes to technology. Boyd points out that “many who use the rhetoric of digital natives position young people either as passive recipients of technological knowledge or as learners who easily pick up the language of technology the way they pick up a linguistic tongue” (Boyd 178). This is commonly believed but Boyd thinks that it is just as easy for elderly to learn about technology than it is for kids. From personal experience, I agree that youth does not know everything about the internet because I believe mostly every website I see and I cannot tell the difference between biased or fake websites. I think it is important to assume everyone knows nearly nothing about the internet because then everyone can have the same learning opportunities. Ofer Zur, a licensed psychologist, and Azzia Walker, author of the book Therapy in the Digital Era, worked together to write an article about digital natives and digital immigrants. Ofer Zur and Azzia Walker created an article, “On Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives: How the Digital Divide Affects Families, Educational Institutions, and the Workplace,” that challenges Boyds argument by showing all the elements to digital natives and digital immigrants. These authors believe that youth automatically have a greater advantage than elders because they grew up with technology surrounding them. In the article they talk about the different categories of being a digital native and a digital immigrant. They point out that [w]hile most digital natives are tech-savvy by virtue of their being born around technology, others do not have a knack for technology and computers, or even an interest or inclination to learn more.” This shows that they expanded on these two terms. Zur and Walker believe that digital immigrants can be separated into avoiders (people who avoid technology altogether), reluctant adopters (people who realize technology is a part of society but engaging in it feels unnatural), and enthusiastic adopters (people who do their best to keep up with natives on technology). They also believe that digital natives can be separated into avoiders (people who do not feel the need to be technologically active), minimalists (people who only use technology when it feels necessary), and enthusiastic participants (people who thoroughly engage in the use of technology). This is a completely different view of technology and challenges Boyds point. By separating digital native and digital immigrants into several categories, it captures all sorts of people and their stances on technology. Boyd on the other hand disregards those terms in total because she doesn’t believe that the youth are experts just based off their time of birth. Boyd finds it naive to think children know everything about technology because she “often found that teens must fend for themselves to make sense of how technologies work and how information spreads.” This shows why society should not place the youth and the elders in different categories when it comes to social media because in reality, children don’t know much about technology at all according to some studies Boyd created that will be talked about in the next paragraph. Overall Boyd disagrees with the terms digital native and digital immigrants whereas Zur and Walker think digital immigrants and digital natives are supposed to be divided into separate categories.

Being born into a society where technology surrounds you can lead to many assumptions that the youth has all the skills and knowledge about it. According to Boyd, the youth actually has little to no real awareness about how the internet actually works. She simply states that “[t]eens may make their own media or share content online, but this does not mean that they inherently have the knowledge or perspective to critically examine what they consume” (Boyd 177). She also points out that becoming literate on a certain subjects takes time and effort regardless of how old you are. Simple skills like knowing when something is biased or fake, understanding algorithms, and knowing how to fact check are important things that most teenagers have no idea how to do. A director of blended and networked learning, Mike Caulfield, has been working in educational technology since 1977. He is very interested and determined in changing the way digital literacy is taught. Mike Caulfield’s article “How “News Literacy” Gets the Web Wrong” extends Boyds argument by providing education and tips about how to navigate websites. He provides three main tips and then extends on each of those. Caulfield says the simplest way to do it is to “[c]heck for previous fact-checking work, go upstream to the source, [and] read laterally.” The main outtake from these pointers is to “check for previous work until there is no more previous work, get as close to the original as you can until you can get no closer, and read laterally until you understand the source.” This set of skills is important to know for many things in day to day life such as reading the news or writing a school paper. Most students, according to Boyd, do not even know what the  “difference between a web browser and the internet” is. By providing people with information about how to differentiate real or fake or biased sites it helps our society grow into a better place all around. Boyd believed digital literacy and having the correct knowledge about technology is extremely important for everyone to know. Boyd interviewed several students about the website wikipedia and nearly all of the children replied with the answer that their teachers told them it was an unreliable source to use for research. Boyd was fascinated by the false information teachers have given to children because she believes that “[w]ikipedia isn’t simply a product of knowledge; it’s also a record of the process by which people share and demonstrate knowledge.” and “[w]ikipedia can be a phenomenal educational tool, but few educators I met knew how to use it constructively.” (Boyd 188-189). All in all Boyd thinks that young people are not properly educated when it comes to technological skills even if society believes they are. Caulfield’s article extends on that by providing specific skills that Boyd believes all people, not just youth, should know.

As I talked about in the paragraph above, having digital literacy skills is extremely important for day to day use of the internet. Skills such as being able to tell the difference between a fake news site and a real one is very important. Boyd points out that “[i]t is dangerous to assume that [anyone is] automatically informed” (Boyd 177). By using the word dangerous, it gets the readers to realize that this isn’t just a small problem, but it is causing dangerous things to happen around the world. An article written by Cecilia Kang and Adam Goldman called “In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns” extends on the danger point that Boyd makes. The article talks about how a man read a fake news website that he thought was real saying that “Comet Ping Pong, a pizza restaurant in northwest Washington, was harboring young children as sex slaves as part of a child-abuse ring led by Hillary Clinton.” In result of this, he brought an illegal weapon to the pizza place in search of these children. As a result of this man not being educated on how to tell whether a website was fake or real, he got arrested. Thankfully in this case nobody was hurt, but if people don’t get the right education on digital literacy then occurrences like this one will continue to happen. This just shows that with all the fake websites out there, everyone needs to be educated on digital literacy. Society shouldn’t assume that one group of people automatically know more about the internet than the other because realistically everyone needs to learn more about the internet. If we want to make a change, then everyone need to ditch the terms digital native and digital immigrant and assume that everyone has the same understanding of the internet and then go on to learn from there.

After all my findings and research, many people have different views on whether to label the youth as digital natives and the elders digital immigrants. Danah Boyd believes that labeling people with these terms is wrong because the technological generation does not know every single aspect about technology. She also thinks that this creates digital inequality because when people assume that youth knows everything, they get left out of many important learning opportunities. Authors Ofer Zur and Azzia Walker use these terms but divide them into different categories based on how engaged a person is with social media. Their point of view challenges Boyds because they believe the use of the terms digital native and digital immigrant is very relevant into today’s society. Boyd also thinks that knowing digital literacy skills is very important for everyone to know. She also says that knowing how to properly use the internet and being able to tell if a website is fake or real is very important. If people aren’t educated then bad things can happen. Author Cecilia Kang and Adam Goldman go on to extend this point of Boyds because it talks about a man that read a fake news site and it resulted in him bringing illegal weapons to a wholesome pizza restaurant. Author Mike Caulfield extends the digital literacy point and talks about some of the most important skills that are needed for day to day use of the internet. All in all Boyd thinks that the terms digital natives and digital immigrants should be abandoned and everyone of all ages should be taught digital literacy skills to prevent bad things from happening and overall make the world a better place to live in.

 

Works Cited

 

Boyd, Danah. “Danah Boyd.” “Living and Learning with Social Media”, www.danah.org/.

 

Boyd, Danah. “The Social Lives of Networked Teens.” It’s Complicated, 2014, rws100wiki.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/99522203/boyd_literacy_digital_natives_OCR.pdf.

 

Caulfield, Mike. “Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers.” Pressbooks, Self-Published, 8 Jan. 2017, webliteracy.pressbooks.com/chapter/four-strategies/.

 

Goldman, Cecilia Kang and Adam. “In Washington Pizzeria Attack, Fake News Brought Real Guns.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Jan. 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html.

 

Zur, Ofer, and Azzia Walker. “On Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives: How the Digital Divide Affects Families, Educational Institutions, and the Workplace.” Zur Institute , 1995, http://www.zurinstitute.com/digital_divide.html.

 

11/13/18 Homework

I am choosing to take path number 4 provided on the prompt. I am going to focus on Boyds main claims that just because young people grew up with technology, doesn’t mean they know everything about it. Boyd points out that wikipedia, despite popular belief, is actually a really good website for several reasons. She also points out other skills that should be taught to the youth.”Youth must become media literate.8 When they engage with media— either as consumers or producers—they need to have the skills to ask questions about the construction and dissemination of particular media artifacts” Another quote from Boyd,”In my fieldwork, I often found that teens must fend for themselves to make sense of how technologies work and how information spreads.”

The outside text https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/chapter/four-strategies/ backs up Boyd because it is teaching us important strategies when it comes to fact checking, etc. https://hapgood.us/2017/03/04/how-news-literacy-gets-the-web-wrong/ same with this website.”I have a simple web literacy model. When confronted with a dubious claim: Check for previous fact-checking work, go upstream to the source, read laterally. That’s it.”http://www.zurinstitute.com/digital_divide.html goes in depth about digital natives and digital immigrants and contrasts with Boyds article. “While most digital natives are tech-savvy by virtue of their being born around technology, others do not have a knack for technology and computers, or even an interest or inclination to learn more.”

 

11/6/18 Homework

After reading a chapter out of Boyd’s book “Its Complicated” I learned that her overall argument was that the terms “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” are in many ways incorrect. Just because young people were born in the time of technology doesn’t mea they know the ins and the outs of technology. Some of her main claims would be that wikipedia is falsely accused of being an unreliable source when it actually “provides an ideal context for engaging youth to interrogate their sources and understand how information is produced” (page number). Another one of her main claims would be that “teens view google as the center of the digital information universe, even though they have little understanding of how the search results are produced” (page number). I find the claim about Wikipedia very interesting because I Personally relate to all the kids that were interviewed and I would like to learn more about how it can give me more valuable information.

11/1/18 Homework

After reading Boyd’s “Literacy: Are Today’s Youth Digital Natives?” I found many main claims that the author makes.

  • “Teens are “digital natives,” and adults, supposedly less knowledgeable about technology and less capable of developing these skills, are “digital immigrants.”
  • “Teens must fend for themselves to make sense of how technologies work and how information spreads.”
  • “Teens will not become critical contributors to this ecosystem simply because they were born in an age when these technologies were pervasive.”
  • “Educators have an important role to play in helping youth navigate networked publics and the information-rich environ- ments that the internet supports.”
  • “Youth must become media literate.8 When they engage with media— either as consumers or producers—they need to have the skills to ask questions about the construction and dissemination of particular media artifacts.”
  • “Teens view Google as the center of the digital informa- tion universe, even though they have little understanding of how the search results are produced, let alone any awareness of how personal- ization affects what they see.”
  • “Wikipedia provides an ideal context for engaging youth to interrogate their sources and under- stand how information is produced.”
  • “Youth who are surrounded by highly sophisticated technical peers are far more likely to develop technical skills themselves. In communities where techni- cal wherewithal is neither valued nor normative, teens are far less likely to become digitally savvy.”
  • “I believe that the digital natives rhetoric is worse than inaccurate: it is dangerous.”
  • “Both adults and youth need to develop media literacy and technological skills to be active participants in our information society.”

I thought it was interesting that the author mentioned a code that kids were learning and exploring through myspace and when they closed it, they closed a learning opportunity for kids. I can relate to this article because my teachers have told me not to use wikipedia as a source for my research. It is interesting because after reading this article I learned that wikipedia can actually be a great resource for having discussions about different topics.

Final Essay #2

Erika Bishop

Professor Werry

RWS 100

30 October 2018

Facebook and Google

Google and Facebook have revolutionized the internet in ways thought not possible before. Google is a go to place for people to look up anything they could ever imagine, and Facebook keeps people connected to family and friends. In the article “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.” the author Roger Mcnamee goes on to express the major destruction that these companies are bringing to society. Roger Mcnamee received his Master of Business Administration at the Tuck School of Business and became an American businessman, investor, and venture capitalist. He later became an analyst at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and proceeded to lead the firm’s Science and Technology Fund. This article specifically entails the downfalls that come with Google and Facebook. In this paper I will discuss two major strategies, analyze one source Mcnamee uses in the text, analyze one assumption he makes, and evaluate one of his strengths within the article.

One of the strategies that Mcnamee used in his article that really stood out to me was the act of comparing Google and Facebook with gambling techniques and also comparing them to heroin, alcohol, and nicotine addictions. For example he says that these companies “[borrow] techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners.” (Mcnamee P3). This is extremely persuasive because people know that gambling, as well as nicotine, alcohol, and heroin, is extremely dangerous because of its addictive qualities. This excerpt can help people realize that even though they may not know they are addicted, they very well can be or at least be on track to addiction. Personally I think this strategy is extremely effective because I would have never thought of google as an addictive source. Once I saw the comparison to gambling, I understood how it could be seen as addictive. This is just one of the strategies Mcnamee used to persuade his readers why Google and Facebook are so addictive.

Another strategy that Mcnamee uses in his text is an appeal to pathos. He does a very good job of getting people to become afraid of these companies after reading his article. He does this by providing words that invoke fear within the reader. The use of words like “terrified” “exploit” “compel” and “brain hacking” do a fantastic job at installing fearful emotions and getting people to continue reading the article. This technique of appealing to one’s emotions is super compelling to the audience because it is a subtle way of getting people to feel their real emotions. When people are emotionally connected they start to become more susceptible to believing what they are reading. He also appeals to pathos by saying “[u]sers fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.” (Mcnamee). The audience can relate to this because they may think back to a family member or friend that has had an addiction in the past. This can make readers have every powerful emotions and feel like the article relates directly to them. The appeal to pathos is overall a good strategy to use when trying to persuade an audience because emotions are very serious and powerful. Mcnamee does a good job using this strategy throughout his article.

Sources are a very important element when writing a persuasive article. Throughout Mcnamee’s article he cites many different sources that help to provide evidence for the readers. One specific source that stood out to me was “[a] 2013 study found that average consumers check their smartphones 150 times a day.” After researching where this source came from, I discovered that this is a very helpful statistic that is coming from a reliable source. This statistic is helpful because it gives the readers a perspective of how much time is really consumed by these companies and their smartphones. Once being introduced to this piece of information it will get them thinking and possibly siding with Mcnamee. It is extremely important to have sources that are trustworthy because readers will disregard any article if it is telling them misinformation. When clicking on the link that the article provides, it takes you to a website ending in .net. According to the University of Wisconsin Green Bay, the most reliable and official websites usually end in .com, .org, .net, .edu, and .gov. Just by looking at this element, along with others, I can tell that this is a source that is going to give me correct information that I can reference if I need to. A source like this once is extremely important to the essays overall credibility and trustworthiness.

The main focus of this article would no doubt be Facebook and Google. It is safe to say that Mcnamee assumes that anyone reading this article uses google and facebook. However, it is not safe to say that everyone cares about, values, or even uses these apps. Assumptions can be dangerous when writing an essay directed towards anyone who reads it. An assumption is defined as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.” according to Google, ironic. In Mcnamees article he made an assumption without thinking about who may continue reading or who might stop. Some readers may not even have the Facebook app or use Google. In this case they wouldn’t even bother reading it due to the title. In Mcnamees defense, majority of society is into social media and uses Google and Facebook. He attempts to bring people in by the title he uses. He establishes credibility and trustworthiness in his title “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.” because he is insinuating that he was on the companies side until he realized they were destructing society. Right off the bat people who are reading know that he is being real and honest throughout his article. Overall Mcnamee’s assumption was fairly safe, but being careful with assumptions is essential to a well rounded persuasive article.

In this article there are several strengths and weaknesses to consider. One strength I saw was Mcnamee’s use of a rhetorical question. This strategy is very influential to the readers because it gets them critically thinking about the question being asked. When talking about companies trying to consume more and more of your time, Mcnamee asks “[h]ow does this work?” After this question, readers are forced to pause and think, how does it actually work and come up with their own ideas first. Then the article follows up on the question with a stat about how much those companies actually consume time out of your day. Rhetorical questions are often very subtle and when you are reading an article most of the time you don’t even realize it is affecting you. Mcnamee did a good job integrating this question into his article and he knew exactly how to persuade people with it. This is why rhetorical questions make a piece of writing better in many ways.

All in all the article “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.” written by the author Roger Mcnamee does a good job at persuading the readers for several reasons. He uses many tactical strategies such as comparison, appeal to pathos, and rhetorical questions that help shape the article as a whole. He also does a great job using outside sources to show factual evidence about what he is trying to persuade. Lastly he makes assumptions about the readers which is not always a bad thing. After analyzing his article, I think he did an overall good job persuading his audience.

Works Cited

 

B., Kevin. “UKnowIT (Self Service).” How Can I Tell If a Website Is Credible?, 2018, uknowit.uwgb.edu/page.php?id=30276.

 

Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. “They Say / I Say”: the Moves That Matter in Academic

Writing. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.

 

Perkins, Kleiner. “KPCB Internet Trends 2013.” LinkedIn SlideShare, 29 May 2013, http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/kpcb-internet-trends-2013.

 

“Roger McNamee.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_McNamee.

 

Werry, Chris. “Rhetoric & Writing Studies”

 

Essay #2 Rough Draft

Erika Bishop

Professor Werry

RWS 100

22 October 2018

Facebook and Google

Google is always a go to place for people to look up answers they don’t know, and Facebook keeps people connected to family and friends. In the article “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.” the author Roger Mcnamee goes on to express the major destruction that these companies are bringing to society. Roger Mcnamee received his Master of Business Administration at the Tuck School of Business and became an American businessman, investor, and venture capitalist. He later became an analyst at T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and proceeded to lead the firm’s Science and Technology Fund. This article specifically entails the downfalls that come with Google and Facebook. In this paper I will discuss two major strategies, analyze one source Mcnamee uses in the text, analyze one assumption he makes, and evaluate one of his strengths within the article.

One of the strategies that Mcnamee used in his article that really stood out to me was the act of comparing Google and Facebook with gambling techniques and also comparing them to heroin, alcohol, and nicotine addictions. For example he says that these companies “[borrow] techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners.” (Mcnamee P3). This is extremely persuasive because people know that gambling, as well as nicotine alcohol and heroin, is extremely dangerous because it can become super addictive. It gets people to realize that even though they may not know they are addicted, they very well could be or at least on track to be. Personally I think this strategy is extremely effective because I would have never thought of google as an addictive source. Once I saw the comparison to gambling, I understood how it could be seen as addictive. This is just one of the strategies Mcnamee used to persuade his readers why Google and Facebook are so addictive.

Another strategy that Mcnamee uses in his text is the appeal to pathos. He does a very good job of getting people to become afraid of these companies after reading his article. He does this by providing words that invoke fear within the reader. The use of words like “terrified” “exploit” “compel” and “brain hacking” do a fantastic job at installing fearful emotions and getting people to continue reading the article. This technique of appealing to one’s emotions is super compelling to the audience because it is a subtle way of getting people to feel their real emotions. When people are emotionally connected they start to become more susceptible to believing what they are reading. He also appeals to pathos by saying “[u]sers fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is too late.” (Mcnamee). The audience can relate to this because they may think back to a family member or friend that has had an addiction in the past. This can make readers have every powerful emotions and feel like the article relates directly to them. The appeal to pathos is overall a good strategy to use when trying to persuade an audience because emotions are very serious and powerful. Mcnamee does a good job using this strategy throughout his article.

Sources are a very important element when writing a persuasive article. Throughout Mcnamee’s article he cites many different sources that help to provide evidence for the readers. One specific source that stood out to me was “[a] 2013 study found that average consumers check their smartphones 150 times a day.” After researching where this source came from, I discovered that this is a very helpful statistic that is coming from a reliable source. It is extremely important to have sources that are trustworthy because readers will disregard any article if it is telling them misinformation. When clicking on the link that the article provides, it takes you to a website ending in .net. The most reliable and official websites usually end in .com, .org, and .net. Just by looking at this element, along with others, I can tell that this is a source that is going to give me correct information that I can reference if I need to.

The main focus of this article would no doubt be Facebook and Google. It is safe to say that Mcnamee assumes that anyone reading this article uses google and facebook. However, it is not safe to say that everyone cares about, values, or even uses these apps. Assumptions can be dangerous when writing an essay directed towards anyone who reads it. An assumption is defined as “a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.” according to Google, ironic. In Mcnamees article he made an assumption without thinking about who may continue reading or who might stop. Some readers may not even have the Facebook app or use Google. In this case they wouldn’t even bother reading it due to the title. In Mcnamees defense, nowadays majority of society is into social media and uses Google and Facebook. He attempts to bring people in by the title he uses. He establishes credibility and trustworthiness in his title “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.” because he is insinuating that he was on the companies side until he realized they were destructing society. Right off the bat people who are reading know that he is being real and honest throughout his article. Overall Mcnamee’s assumption was fairly safe but being careful with assumptions is essential to a well rounded persuasive article.

In this article there are several strengths and weaknesses to consider. One strength I saw was Mcnamee’s use of a rhetorical question. This strategy is very influential to the readers because it gets them critically thinking about the question being asked. When talking about companies trying to consume more and more of your time, Mcnamee asks “[h]ow does this work?” After this question, readers are forced to pause and this how it actually does work and come up with their own ideas first. Then the article follows up on the question with a stat about how much those companies actually consume time out of your day. Rhetorical questions are often very subtle and when you are reading an article most of the time you don’t even realize it is affecting you. Mcnamee did a good job integrating this question into his article and he knew exactly how to persuade people with it. This is why rhetorical questions make a piece of writing better in many ways.

All in all the article “I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.” written by the author Roger Mcnamee does a good job at persuading the readers for several reasons. He uses many tactical strategies such as comparison, appeal to pathos, and rhetorical questions that help shape the article as a whole. He also does a great job using outside sources to show factual evidence about what he is trying to persuade. Lastly he makes assumptions about the readers which is not always a bad thing. After analyzing his article, I think he did an overall good job persuading his audience.

 

Works Cited

 

Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. “They Say / I Say”: the Moves That Matter in Academic

Writing. W. W. Norton & Company, 2018.

 

Perkins, Kleiner. “KPCB Internet Trends 2013.” LinkedIn SlideShare, 29 May 2013, http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/kpcb-internet-trends-2013.

 

“Roger McNamee.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 27 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_McNamee.

 

Werry, Chris. “Rhetoric & Writing Studies”