In Tufekci’s article “What Happens to #Ferguson Affects Ferguson” she discusses the role of twitter into political movements and overall events in the world. My roommate is very active on twitter and she was very active in the #ferguson, #icantbreath, and #blacklivesmatter movement. She went to protest in the streets and she has credited Twitter as her main form of communication with other fellow activists. I have read her Twitter feed and she is having important discussions and also trying to educate people. She is posting links to articles and encourages everyone to inform themselves. I do now have Twitter anymore and primarily use Facebook as my main means of online communication. I really feel like Facebook is not a good way to inform yourself of political issues because it is heavily filtered. I am always seeing the same 20 people post on Facebook and I know I have way more friends than that.

An incident that came to mind while reading the Tufekci article is the #ChapelHillShooting. I found out about it because of the “trending” section on the side of Facebook but I feel like I found out too late. I know things circulate way faster on Twitter and if I would have had Twitter it would have came to my attention faster. That is not to say that Twitter is heavily filtered, like the article states. The #ChapelHillShooting really broke my heart because of the news outlets. I saw the shooter’s wife on the news crying and explaining how a good man he was but I did not see the deceased’s families. News outlets were weary of calling him a terrorist or racist but if it would have been a Muslim killing three individuals it the news outlets would have painted the picture very differently. Sometimes I feel like personal accounts of news via Twitter are less disheartening than the things I see on TV or formal news outlets. Everything is filtered, yes, but we have to know what we should listen to and learn from.

Even though all these hashtags annoy me, I am so happy there are spaces where important events are being discussed, especially those trying to counter the popular media. Even though Twitter + Facebook are heavily filtered, I am glad people can post articles (and I hope I can see them!) and things that should be talked about are trending!

The article stated that youth that are growing up in the digital age are self-centered consumers who ignore the importance of privacy and who also steal and plagiarize. BUT they are also promoting tolerance, freedom, diversity, innovation, and political awareness. Because humans are not perfect but also strive for a better life, I see some truth for this all. Especially on tumblr. I used to religiously go on tumblr when I was around 18-19. I did not care about the NSA (I used to say..”if I’m not doing anything wrong…”) and did not care that everything is filtered and made to sell us SOMETHING. I cared about new clothes and fashion and bought whatever I wanted without being aware of anything important. I haven’t used tumblr in a while but recently I was on my sister’s computer and decided to just scroll through her feed. I think a lot of the youth might be more self-involved (aka I saw a lot of selfies, personal posts, wishlists, etc) but they are very educated as well. I saw a lot of discussion about race, feminism, equal rights, and there was overall a lot of awareness. The youth is not perfect and to expect them as such is ridiculous. My sister is growing up in the digital age more than I am but I see so much intelligence, especially compared to my own 18-year-old self. The internet is a new platform where the youth can express themselves in ways that were not possible before. They are forming communities (which you can see on tumblr) and engaging in exchanging ideas and thoughts. I think people are calling the youth self centered/etc because they are so exposed in the internet whereas before many would just write in their diary (as we’ve mentioned before). I have faith in my generation and the younger youth.

While reading “Race and Social Media” and re-learning about the construction of race and its role in colonization and power, I was reminded about all my Latin American art history classes. Not only do we see this in art regarding latin american colonization, but also in how we treat art itself. With much of the art history (or any) education here in the United States, the Western world sees themselves as “greater.” When looking at the requirements for my art history degree, things are often categorized as “Western” and “Non-Western.” Western includes the United States, Canada, most of Europe or any “countries of European colonial origin” (according to Wikipedia). When we talk about Non-western we usually mean Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc. Labeling the art categories as such makes everything revolve around the West (the conquerors). People usually see the West as the “best” since they have “advanced” the most, but labeling everything as non-western kind of seems to demean it to me. One class in particular was labeled “Intro to Pre-Columbian Art,” which is very problematic as we are saying that these cultures (Inca, Maya, Aztec etc) are only visible because of Christopher Columbus. These cultures existed beforehand and Columbus’ arrival has nothing to do with their art. Of course my professor, who is an Inca art expert, changed the name to the class to “Art in the Americas before 1500” because she understood the conflict.

Not to mention that the colonizers thought they were bettering the world by spreading their Christian ideas and getting rid of the other cultures (aztec, maya, etc) because they were blasphemous and not like Europe.

Everything we talk about, we usually talk in the Western view. In my information studies class we talked about how our current time is called “the digital age” but in reality ONLY 12% of the world is plugged in. This Western view is everywhere, and the Western view was/is predominately white, even though we are so mixed nowadays and there is so much culture flourishing. We see it in leadership (mostly white males), in education, and in everyday things like entertainment. I feel like things are slowly changing, especially from the colonial times, but we need have more voices heard of different ethnicities, colors, race, whatever you want to call it.

I’ve always thought the idea of the internet being dangerous for children and teens a little ridiculous. Of course the internet has A LOT of bad things, but I think most teens these days are fully capable of being responsible online. They grew up with the internet and are experts at using it! David Pogue, in his article “How Dangerous is the Internet?” in the NY Times (read it here), agrees. He states that he was told to write an article about the danger of the internet, and when he did his editor was disappointed because it wasn’t “sensational.” He recalls a moment when his son saw a naked version of The Incredibles and how he decided not to make it a big deal (as other parents have..usually freaking out and making it a big deal). With regards to teens and sex/porn/nudity..they see a lot of it in regular shows! Every show nowadays usually has some sort of sex scene, so teens probably don’t think twice about it when they see it online. I don’t think there is a worry regarding meeting strangers online. Like I’ve said before, my sister has met a lot of fellow One Directions fans on twitter. She knows about stranger danger and the negatives of the internet. When meeting someone on twitter, she usually talks (tweets) to them often and slowly become friends on different social media platforms. Before meeting them she usually skypes them, too! And she never goes by herself. There are so many different strategies to use while on the internet. There are far more dangerous things than meeting a creep on the internet. I think we should all remember that young people these days are really intelligent and savvy with the internet. Of course parents should always look after their kids but there are limitations.

danah boyd’s article, “Super Publics,” explains how much public spaces have changed in regards to “who is the public.” She states that with the internet, the public becomes much larger and much more diverse. She also mentions how there is no sort of filter when it comes to what is posted online. People post everything, and she states: “Open digital expression systems coupled with global networks took it one step farther by saying that anyone could operate as media and expose anyone else.” Everyone will therefore expose themselves. This, to me, related to blogging! I personally love blogging even if no one is listening. But the fact that so many people are blogging about their experiences, their daily lives, their feelings, etc is a way of exposing yourself. This actually reminds me of the past article we read about blogging being like modern diary writing! And the people you communicate on your blogs (I have met various friends blogging) are part of your super public! Before, people would meet friends at work, at school, through mutual friends, and maybe through family. But now it isn’t that way anymore. People make friendships online and even date online! These super publics can be beneficial in many ways. There is more diversity and more ideas being spread around. The public at my high school reflected the experiences that you were able to have in that particular setting, but this would be very different from a public in New York City. While super publics can be positive, when boyd mentioned this it made me think: What happens when you cannot predict who will witness your act because they are not visible now, even though they may be tomorrow? Who is reading my blog? Maybe a strange person who now knows I went to LACMA on this certain date. Super publics can be uncomfortable as much as they can be good.

As I was reading It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, the experiences and words really reminded me of my younger sister. She is on every social media outlet, and is a big fan of twitter. She’s a huge fan of One Direction and has met fellow fans that have become really close friends because of twitter. She doesn’t like me going on her twitter. She even has 2 twitters: a safe family-friendly and school-friendly twitter and a nerdy, one direction, ranting-type twitter that she only shares with her closest friends.

I, as an annoying older sister, sometimes go on her not-allowed-for-everyone twitter and I see her cussing sometimes. I used to cuss at her age, and I was very like her in a lot of ways. But I still get mad and sometimes scorn her for it! And I know that’s bad. But I want her to be better than me (even though I know cussing is NOT a big deal!).

I am twenty-three now and do not relate to her teenage self anymore. We relate in so many other ways but I know I should just let her act as her teenage self. I sometimes tell her not too binge watch TV, even though I used to do that, too. It’s a weird thing to change mindsets with years. Teenagers cuss, teenagers binge watch TV, and they should be left alone.

I know she wants to be herself, and talk about shows with her friends, and cuss when she’s really mad – therefore I am all for teenagers being teenagers.

On a different note, with teenagers having such a huge presence online, they’re definitely influenced by the media. My sister constantly sees people talk about different issues on twitter and comes to me to have a conversation about it and I think that’s awesome. While I hope teenagers don’t easily buy into everything said online and approach it with a critical lens, I know that teenagers are more informed than ever! So even though I still don’t like the cussing and binge TV watching, I’m glad there is an outlet for discussion!

With the overall topic about the internet and its use these days, there is a lot to talk about, whether the positive outcomes or the negative. In the beginning of Baym’s reading, she talks about the dismay many have had about the advancement of technology and how it has ultimately been a disfavor for humans. In one way, it has created amazing advancements and opportunities for humans. But when will it go too far?

There have been many who have publicly warned about the negatives of the advancement of technology and one is Stephen Hawking. He has stated previously that he believes artificial intelligence could end mankind (read BBC News article here). Of course, Hawking himself relies on AI, so there is a question on when AI could go too far? To what point could it end mankind? He himself admits to his use of AI, but feels like one day it could develop quicker than human beings, and therefore “take off on its own.”

Could this be possible? In only the past 5 years technology has developed very quickly. In this NPR article, “Psst! Wearable Devices Could Make Big Tech Leaps, Into Your Ear,” the author talks about this “wearable technology” that feeds whatever information you need into your ear. The example they use is someone encountering a colleague whom you do not remember, therefore you say the colleague’s name, and the device in your ear does a really quick online search and gives you information on them.

This reminds me of a Doctor Who episode where everyone wears similar “wearable technology” and are then controlled via the technology by Cybermen. Obviously this is a sci-fi show, but the concept is similar. This was already a concept thought about in 2006, when the episode aired.

We don’t know where technology is going, but it is good to be conscious about how it is affecting our daily lives. We have become so reliant on our phones, laptops, and television, that we will keep adapting to newer technology, even if it might seem ridiculous.