engl-1010-087

Effects of Digital Media

Thu, 03 May 2012 01:19:54 +0100

Abby Hart

ENGL-1010

Effects of Digital Media

In recent years there has been a debate over how the internet and other digital media is being used and how it is affecting individuals and society. Common terms and phrases like media revolution, digital tools, mobile connectivity, media multitasking, “always on”, and “the culture of distraction” have been used by Nicholas Carr, Maria Bustillos, and Sherry Turkle to describe the recent phenomenon. All of them take a position, either positive or negative, regarding the effects on our consumption of the internet and digital media.

In “Does the Internet Make You Dumber?” article, Nicholas Carr argues that the internet is making you less smart and making you lose some of your cognitive skills. One of the things Carr said that the people, who receive messages like e-mail, voice, and text, are the kind of people who understand less than others. The other kind of people who multitask are less productive and less creative. The division of attention is the common thread of these abilities says Carr. He notes a Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist, Eric Kandel, who says that that only when we pay close attention to something the information will associate its self with something in our own memory. In one study they had people who were screen multitaskers and people who did a lot less of multitasking. In the study they found that the screen multitaskers could not really multitask in the real world because everything distracts them. In the end Carr is in favor of every one gaining more self-control and having them use it so the internet is used less and less.

Nicholas Carr mainly uses logos in his article. Logos is using accurate facts and then providing logical and meaningful reasons to support a position. Carr does not rely on his own credibility, instead he references a Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist, Eric Kandel. The Nobel Prize is an international award given for outstanding achievement. Kandel received this award in 2000 for his research in memory storage in neurons. Carr also sites research studies conducted at reputable universities like Cornell and Stanford and other related professionals in the field to get the reader to believe or agree with his argument.

Although logos is the main appeal, the author uses pathos by providing facts that create emotion. Pathos is the use of emotion to persuade in an argument. The two best ways to use the readers emotions is be using specific, vividly described examples and making your word choices with the awareness of the emotional connotations of words. The introduction starts with subtle emotion when he says that we are becoming “scattered and superficial thinkers.” He is trying to make you to feel that you have a lack of thoroughness or care and that you are distracted or disorganized, which are all negative. When Carr sited neuroscientist Michael Merzenich explaining that our brains are being “massively remodeled” he is trying to strike fear.

Maria Bustillos takes a different view than Carr in her article “The Internet Is Making You Smarter!” Bustillos argues against Carr’s idea that the internet is “brain-damaging.” The reason that Carr came up with that idea is because he cannot concentrate like he used to, then he suddenly blames the internet. She criticizes Carr for not considering any other issues that could have been causing this lack of concentration. Bustillos mainly focuses on the reading aspect of Carr’s argument, comparing hyperlinks to footnotes and the differences between readers’ skill levels. She says, “It’s well worth the extra effort of concentration; if you want the goods, you’ll put up with the cost.” In the end Bustillos says that our brains are adaptable and we will adapt to gaining all this knowledge from the internet. She also says that the internet is making us “supremely better-informed and far more capable of serious study.” Bustillos says if there is a thing making us dumber, it is the paranoid attitude.

Although Bustillos has some good arguments, where are her facts? She sites only one person, Laura Miller. Who is Laura Miller? Bustillos never says why Miller is credible. Her good idea is to look for another cause. Another problem is that she says that advanced readers don’t have a problem reading complicated text. Bustillos never says how many readers are advanced who consume the internet?

To persuade her readers, Bustillos relies on logos. Although she lacks credibility and fails to refer to other credible people she uses logical explanations for why the internet isn’t as bad as Carr said. She looks for other causes, and provides solutions like, “Practice at reading these complex texts…” Her simplified solutions, to what might be a real difficulty for people, may not help those who have a hard time and are not “advanced readers”. Bustillos doesn’t use a lot of pathos but she still uses it. For example she uses scare tactics by using the words “panic” and “paranoid” and tells readers if we think like Carr, we’ll have sapped “cognitive power” and severely degraded memory retention.

Not too long ago Sherry Turkle gave a talk on TED entitle “Alone Together”. She starts with a story about how we worried about how we would be able to keep computers busy. Now they keep us busy and we are their “killer app.” Turkle goes on to say we text at dinner, while we drive (even though it can be deadly), and even at funerals. She also mentions that kids notice parents on their phones when being picked up from school and they are so busy with their phones that don’t even make eye contact with their child. She calls all of this “The Culture of Distraction.” Turkle says this mobile connectivity is “always on” and “always on us”. Turkle says we are substituting life on a screen for the other kind. We bail out of the physical and the real and we want to. We are letting technology be the designer of our relationships. She also says we are lonely and fearful of intimacy, choosing the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. Turkle says we share what’s easy and what looks good online but not what’s real. The end result is that we are losing the ability to be alone and the ability to converse and connect and have necessary conversations.

Sherry Turkle uses all three types of rhetoric. Ethos is established when she says she was at MIT, a world-renowned university. She was involved in research there and has interviewed kids who have grown up with parents that are “plugged in.” Upon little effort one can find she has a duel doctorate in sociology and personality psychology from Harvard (another well know university). She is also a professor at MIT and founder of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self. Pathos is used when she talks about things we are all probably guilty of or have experienced. She makes us feel sad for these children who have to deal with the competition of technology for their parents’ attention. Turkle talks about the anxiety people feel when they don’t have their phones. We become “impossible without our phones.” Finally, logos is used when Turkle tries to help us understand that if it is this bad now, then it will only get worse. We won’t be able to have “necessary conversations” and we’ll become more addicted.

When comparing Carr, Bustillos and Turkle we primarily see different opinions. Carr feels the internet and digital multitasking are diminishing your mental skills. Bustillos doesn’t agree with Carr and thinks we should practice our “new muscle”. Turkle sees a bigger picture. She looks at what’s happening with relationships and how multimedia is affecting it. All of them have valid points. Maybe we need to become more aware of how we use the internet and digital media and make better decisions based on what they’ve taught us.

Works Cited

Bustillos, Maria. “The Internet Is Making You Smarter!”theawl.com. The Awl. 8 June 2010. Web. 5 May 2011

Carr, Nicholas. “Does the Internet Make You Dumber.” Onlinewsj.com. The Wall Street Journal, 5 June 2010. Web. 5 May 2011

Nobel Prize. Nobelprize.org/nobel-prizes/. Nobel Media AB 2012. 2 May 2011.

Turkle, Sherry. “Alone Together.” YouTube.com. YouTube, 25 March 2011. Web. 5 May 2011.

What to Do About Piracy?

Wed, 02 May 2012 19:18:10 +0100

Abby Hart

ENGL-1010

What to Do About Piracy?

Piracy is becoming more and more popular. The internet is making it easier to get what you want for free online. For example, you could go to Google and type “watch free movies online” and you would get about 803,000,000 results. You could get the latest action flick without having to leave the comfort of your home and get if for free. The creators of digital content do not like how easy it is to get your new favorite song, movie, etc. for free online. The thing is, you may find yourself spending the next five years of your life in prison. Digital piracy is a problem because creators are not getting paid for their intellectual property. Currently we are unable to effectively regulate offenders. Estimates on cost to the U.S. economy range anywhere from $58 billion to $250 billion year. Julian Sanchez explains in a Cato Institute report that the numbers released by the Government Accountability Office in 2010 are not accurate. Sanchez also said, “These figures were made up out of thin air.” It could be that those most affected estimate the costs of piracy to be higher. (Raustiala and Sprigman ) To help solve this problem, media industries have demanded Congress do something. Bills like PIPA &SOPA have been proposed to protect media companies. OPEN was the last billed to be proposed when people spoke up about the potential consequences of PIPA & SOPA. SOPA and PIPA would be the most constraining due to undesired consequences. Although SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN have problems, OPEN is the better option and the most liked by those who still want to create and share digital media.

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) was introduced to The House Judiciary Committee in November 2011. The PROTECT IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA) is basically the same as SOPA but created by Congress. SOPA and PIPA are created with the purpose to “crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content (Pepitone).” SOPA addresses the theft of digital media by making the website that hosted the site liable. The Pirate Bay and BitTorrent tracker are websites where you can have access to free music, movies, TV shows, E-Books, video games, comics, and much more. These are the main targets of SOPA. According to Clay Shirky’s TED talk, “Why SOPA is a bad idea”, his means that we reverse innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. The sites that allow users to host material, like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, TED, would have to monitor all uploads. Sites like these would have to shut down due to the costs of monitoring content hosted. If the site is out of the United States then search engines would be required not to link to them. The internet service providers would also be required to block access to those sites.

If SOPA was passed it would effectively censor the internet and limit innovation greatly due to the shutdown of most, if not all, social media sites. Without access to social media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, My Space, Instagram, etc. freedom of speech would be limited. Venture capitalists have expressed their reluctance to invest in projects that may have the potential of copyright infringement due to user’s media being hosted. Without the funding from venture capitalists innovation would be hindered due to lack of funding.

In protest of SOPA and PIPA some websites went down for a day, Wednesday, January 18, 2012. This “blackout” day included Wikipedia, Reddit, Mozilla, Flickr, WordPress, Tumblr, and Vimeo. Although Google didn’t go “black” it did have a black banner across its name on its homepage with a link to www.sopastrike.com. It was the largest online strike in history. On January 20, 2012 the bill was indefinitely postponed. (Shakir)

Examples of copyright infringement include photo copying books or magazines, recording music off the radio, checking out a CD from a public library and ripping a copy. All of these examples are not addressed by SOPA, PIPA, or OPEN. Another example of copyright infringement is mentioned in a Ted.com talk by Clay Shirky. He shared this story. A college bakery had this machine that could print or copy a picture onto a sheet of sugar for cakes. This bakery had kids come in with their drawings of their favorite carton carters like Mickey Mouse, Dora, Scooby Doo, etc. that they had drawn. Is that not copyright infringement? The bakery had to basically say, “Hey, sorry but no more ‘amateurs’ but you can pick out from the selection of pre-picked pictures or be a ‘professional’. (Shirky)”

Some of the major supporters of SOPA are: Microsoft, Sony, McAfee, Motion Picture Association of America (which include Paramount Pictures, Walt Disney Studios, Warner Brothers and Sony Pictures Entertainment), Pfizer (pharmaceutical company), and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Chris Dodd, chairman and CEO of the MPAA, made statements against the “Blackout” saying it was a “gimmick” and “an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them…” Pfizer’s CSO and VP of Global Security Team, John P. Clark, says piracy is a global problem and clients are at risk from counterfeited medicines. RIAA said SOPA will protect consumers from rogue sites (Vafeiadis).

Film, music, photos, eBooks, and software are the most pirated forms of digital media. We should protect their intellectual property but at what cost? Those that oppose SOPA are those that host the most pirated forms of media, those that illegally download such media and sites that may have to shut down due to the inability to effectively monitor the data being hosted. Some such opposers are eBay, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Yahoo. (Writer)

OPEN, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Act, was a bill introduced to Congress as an alternative to SOPA on December 17, 2011. Senator Ron Wyden, from Oregon, and Representative Darrell Issa, from California proposed this bill. Unlike SOPA which redirects or blocks users from offending sites, OPEN “…seeks to stop transfers of money to foreign websites whose primary purpose is piracy or counterfeiting… (Keep the Web Open)”. The enforcement of OPEN would fall under the United States International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC would have power to resolve patent-related disputes, collect fees from complainants, and hire investigators. OPEN protects rights of artists like SOPA but it is different in its policing as it does not create new policing authority. OPEN protects “legitimate internet businesses, social media, legitimate websites and internet innovation. (Keep the Web Open)”

Supporters of OPEN include Google, Facebook, Consumer Electronics Association, and the Computer and Communications Industry Association. These companies feel that OPEN is a good place to start. It would be an effective way to stop pirating but keep legitimate business in business. Fred von Lohmann, an attorney for Google, said, “We think following the money, the money that supports foreign rogue sites, is a sensible place to start. (Keep the Web Open)” The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) strongly opposes OPEN. They feel it would allow companies to profit from online piracy. Individual artists and creators are concerned about the frustrations and complexity OPEN will require of them.

To conclude, maybe OPEN is what we need to get our foot in the door to stop piracy. SOPA and PIPA maybe too much for internet users, social media, and internet businesses to handle. Fighting for piracy to go away is still important though. There could be other solutions yet to be created. One of those solutions is finding a middle ground between SOPA and OPEN. To have all parties be happy, users, business and the government, will require time and compromise. In the meantime, because of all the consequences SOPA and PIPA will have if they become a law, OPEN would be the better bet.

Works Cited

Keepthewebopen.com. Web. 11/4/2012

Magid, Larry. “What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All The Fuss?” Forbes. Forbes.com, 18 Jan 2012. Web. 11/4/2012.

Potter, Ned. “’Wikipedia Blackout, ’SOPA and PIPA Explained.” NBC. NBC.com ,17 Jan 2012. Web. 11/4/2012.

Shakir, Faeiz. “BREAKING: Harry Reid Cancels Senate Debate Over Protect IP Act.” Think Progress. Center for American Progress Action Fund, 20 Jan 2012. Web. 11/4/2012.

Shirky, Clay. “Clay Shirky: Why SOPA is a bad idea.” TED. TED Conferences, Jan 2012. Web. 10/4/2012.

Sopastrike.com. Web. 11/4/2012.

Raustiala, Kal and Sprigman, Chris. “How Much Do Music and Movie Piracy Really Hurt the U.S. Economy?” Freaknomics.com. Freakonomics, 12 Jan 2012. Web. 30/4/12.

Vafeiadis, Michail. “Five Major SOPA Supporters.” The Christian Science Monitor. Web. 11/4/2012

Writer, Staff. “Behind SOPA: What It Means for Business and Innovation.” BusinessInsurance.Com. Business Insurance Quotes. Web. 10/4/2012.

Self Assessment

Wed, 02 May 2012 18:59:08 +0100

Go to this link to see my self assessment of my english 1010 class.
http://prezi.com/stcnfu9qh2mq/self-assessment/