1. Where can we draw the line as to what should be allowed to be taken down from search engines?
2. If there was a small fee remove the links from the search engines, can the removal of the links be used to create more jobs?
3. How can the removal of personal information on search engines affect businesses or personal life in the future?
1. What can journalists do to ensure they are able to find information quickly enough to be able to post ground breaking stories quickly?
2. Is it better to remove the story entirely or edit it based on new information?
3. What should news sites or papers do when someone’s personal life is damaged due to hasty false information in an article?
Corporations have been influencing news sources for many years to only feed us information that will benefit them. If a big corporation decides to buy out an independent news source, they can persuade journalists to change their wording to only speak in their favor. This lets a lot of big corporations get away with a lot of injustices as the journalists write about only their accomplishments and the little good deeds that they may do for the local communities. The article I read as an example “Could A Small Nuclear War Reverse Global Warming?” was published by the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post was purchased by AOL. AOL has also purchased many other corporations in the past as well. The article defends the use of Nuclear weapons and states that it can be beneficial to the environment. They vaguely talk about how it has killed many people in the past. A mainstream new source would not defend the use of nuclear weapons.
I read a chapter from the book “Networked: The New Social Operating System of Networked Individualism” by Lee Rainie and Barry Wellman. I read the text in print because it is my preferred method of accessing information. Someone who is interested in this book most likely already knows what it will be about based on the title alone. The first chapter starts by sharing a story where social media started and helped to fix a problem. The story itself was realistic enough that it can happen to anyone. That alone drew me in as a reader. The format wasn’t an academic overflow of information. The story stayed relevant to the book’s topic without feeling like it may be a waste of time. As for the text itself, I can tell that it is going to meaningfully adapt whatever information it contains to what happens in our everyday lives. This format is definitely good for the intention of drawing readers in.
In the article “From Papyrus to Pixels” The Economist tackles a topic that readers like myself face in everyday life. That is the problem of the e-reader and how it has changed how we choose to read. As technology advances there are new ways to access information. The Economist speaks about the pros and cons in using an e-reader or other electronic reading devices versus reading words in an actual book. It was mentioned how students retain more information when reading a book and how it puts less strain on the reader themselves. Although the author’s research has been in favor of the book, there is still a possibility that they may become obsolete due to the fact that the information can be easily accessed electronically. Only time will tell how we choose to access our information in the future.