Essay #1 peer commentary

Commentary #1

First off the focus of your essay is great. It is a huge subject and you should easily be able to find/ discuss sources. Your intro was also very good, it drew me in and illustrated a scene in which most people today have experienced. Now if I were to improve upon your essay I would say you need some statistics or some kind of quotes. The idea of technology as “a gift from us to us” is a great line. Maybe try to say something about how people with different phones (smartphones and non-smartphones) like a percentage or how many people have phones now versus ten years ago.  Another thing I really liked about your essay were the situational examples that you gave (great for confirmations). Now definitely use some stats here where you mentioned People possibly getting hit by a car or hitting someone or something with a car (that would also be great for confirmations). From what I have read I do not see any real Refutation part in your essay, but it is just a draft so I’m sure you will be fine when you go back and fix it. The conclusion was put together very well. I think you wrote a great ending and with the use of emotion, I’m sure it will hit its mark. So basically from what I read you have a good argument (just need info to back it up/ spice it up), the intro/conclusion is very good, and the only thing you really need is a Refutation section.

torture article

1. Should torture be described by the tortured or the one who tortures? (in this case because the one being tortured has a way out).
2. This article is meant to bring attention to American torture, but does this article counteract the real message.
3. Should the military release "inspiring formation" from its captives or people they are questiong?

People experience things differently. Some people can accurately describe what happened to them selves while many can not. More people who experience things from a distance still can not accurately describe things. Now if you signed yourself up for a "torturing experience" could you actually go through it and actually experience it? Well its my opinion that the author did not actually explore the ideas behind "safe torturing" and that his experience was not truly experienced. I understand that the author tried to have a real experience, but his details on the "softness" or "safety" of his experience ruins it all. I appreciate the experiment but in my otion it was not successful.

essay #1

Erik Arndt

Professor Brown

English 1B

February 20, 2013

The Internet: Creating distance among people far and wide

            People all over the world get up and turn on their computer before anything else, and why? To check their mail, see the latest post on Facebook, maybe check the news or even to just to twitter about a dream they just had. The internet is great for many things and lets people around the world stay in "contact" with each other, but does it really? The internet brings the world to our fingertips, but man is not united; instead in this golden age of information makes more people isolated every day.

            The world has never been this well connected before. People around the world talk all the time now through many different social network devices but how does this affect the individual behind the screen? " After drugs and alcohol addiction, if the world is facing any new type of addiction disorder, then that is Facebook addiction. This is a kind of Internet addiction, but social networking site influences such that people goes mad behind it" ( Das, pg. 225).  people believe that being social and having friends now can be entirely done online. People don't want to deal with real life situations, struggles or challenges. People want to get the same benefits but not do anything in return for them. How often do you call a friend? or how about visiting family? Now that the internet has come people don't need to go visit friends or family they can just go online and see what everyone is doing. " A survey conducted among 1000 people across United States to find people‟s addiction to social networking sites, finds 56 percent users check Facebook at least once a day. And 29 percent can stay only few hours without checking their account" ( Das, pg. 225). Social networking sites have become a serious problem in this new age, and it's creating a lot of barriers (not just distance) between people. Another fun problem arising is when you think your phone is vibrating but it is not, it's called " phantom-vibration syndrome" (Biali). This is a bad sign for anyone who thinks they hear or feel something when it's not really there. Besides these problems sitting at a computer (which some experts say is about 8 hours a day for most adults now days, which can lead to health issues) we have people who use the internet/ social networking sites to steal information, hurt people, and to take advantage of people in any way possible.

            In this fashion people prowl the web and look for people to steal from social networking sites are perfect for this. "A report by Daily Mail shows “crimes associated with the networking site have increased by as much as 7000 percent in some area  – including cases of murder, rape, pedophilia, bullying, assault and burglary” ("Facebook – crime," 2010)" (Das, pg. 225). To most people that's a huge jump in crime rates. We as a people should see this information and try to fix this problem (probably by not posting everything on the web), but because the internet makes us feel safe we think that will never happen to us. It's a vicious cycle that keeps biting people because they refuse to see the signs.

            Another huge issue in the internet era is content, and how people perceive it. Facebook has a lot of different content on it, some funny and some very inappropriate. There are some lines that should not be crossed but people do so anyway some such as "  ...images currently appearing on the site include a joke about raping a disabled child, a joke about sex with an underage girl and image after image after image of women beaten, bloodied and black-eyed in graphic domestic violence..." (Bates). These terrible ideas and images appear online (and in this case Facebook) all the time. The company will not get rid of these images because that would be censoring and they seem to believe that in this case should be debated and make people change as a whole (on this topic I do agree with, to change the internet you have to change the people not always the site). But these problems seem to stem because people who do these things anonymously.

            People will do anything as long as they won't get caught doing it. The internet is great for people who believe this and actually do this. Granted many people act or are forced by companies to be anonymous for their own safety.

            "Internet search companies say they protect their clients’ privacy by encrypting personal    information and by using numbers instead of names to give their users anonymity. The problem is that anonymization is not always effective. AOL user number 4417749 found             this out the hard way in 2006 when AOL decided to publish online a list of 20 million        Web searches, including hers and those of 657,000 other users." ( Lloyd).

Most people understand that they need watch what they say and do online. This is why privacy and anonymous listing is around. All of my arguments have flaws, social media creates a lot of problems for people (divorces, theft, and even psychological issues) but on the flip side it does allow people to come together around the world and see other perspectives. Now crime is rampant and needs to fixed online, but crime also happens offline too. Yes people have always stolen and will always do so but the internet takes it to another level (just as the gun did with armed robbery). Lastly content should be monitered or at least be at least tasteful but everyone has their own taste and as I say "to each their own".

            Despite all the logic and all of the resources we have available to us we are misusing the internet. People have a right to use the internet as they see fit but people need to show some kind of moral backbone when they post or talk about their views. Civilization has come so far in the last couple of years. We need to stick to those ideals and prove that we can carry the mantle that is the Human Race. Whether online or offline people should try to be tactful but strive to bring change to their world.

           

Works Cited Page

Bates, Laura. "Does Facebook have a problem with women". The Gaurdian. February 18th, 2013.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/19/facebook-images-rape-domestic-violence?CMP=twt_gu

Biali, Susan. "Too much time online makes you moodier, lonier and obsessed". Psychology Today. July 31st, 2012. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/prescriptions-life/201207/too-much-time-online-makes-you-moodier-lonelier-and-obsessed

Das, Biswajit, and Shankar Sahoo Jyoti. "Social Networking Sites - A Critical Analysis of its Impact on Personal and Social Life." International Journal of Business and Social Science 2.14 (2011)ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Global. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

Lloyd, Seth. "Privacy and the quantum internet". Scientific American. October 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prviacy-and-the-quantum-internet

Lagy gaga and the death of sex

1. did the author of this article put to much personal feelings into her argument?
2. can the author really compare the present singers vs the older singers?
3. are the ideas of sex and death truly skin deep? or at least appear to be coming from lady gaga

I will choose the second question. I understand that people always judge new music to older music. but is this comparison really fair? I don't think that this is fair at all. If Elvis was around he would not be selling the same as he did back in the 50's (if he started now and did the same music). People still compose and play classical music but are not appreciated as they were back hundreds of years ago. Music regardless of what it is meant to describe or state a point is art. Art can be seen in some many ways, and I think the author of this article gave her opinion about her views. She also said many things about my generation that are simply not true. If she wanted to make a compelling argument she did, but to me her argument was just wrong. Using pathos, ethos, and logos we can see she created a compelling argument. She tried to use ethos but her sources are skewded toward her opinion. Her pathos was aimed at a different generation from whom she was wrtiting about. and her Logos was very one sided. She did well when creating an argument but for me I just want the truth and none of this crude overstating of music/ art.

"a marketplace of echos"

1. How much diversity is right?
2. Is diversity really necessary or is it just an on again off again hot topic?
3. What is the solution to these "Echo Chambers", if there even is one?

In response to the third question: What is the solution to these "Echo Chambers", if there even is one? First off, this question is necessary because it is one of the underlining problems stated in our reading. People have gathered together, traveled together, and even died together because of their views/ opinions; so why not sit around and discuss topics together online? The underlining issue of these "Echo Chambers" appear to be people who have the same likes/dislikes, and its great that people can have that. The Problem is that they all have the same ideas (generally speaking of course). So my answer to this question is why do people care if echo chambers exist. This same Phenomena happens all the time and has been for hundreds of years (faiths, nations being built, clubs, etc). Should we find a way to make people find new thoughts and ideas? The world is very diverse, the world shaped us, so why don't we shape the internet as the world shaped us?