Month: November 2021

Since the beginning of the age of humanity, people have always sought to be free, to be uninhibited by their surroundings, and unrestricted by others. There is no better example of this than the invention of the World Wide Web. Since it’s creation, the goal of the internet was to share information and ideas like never before. To make any information accessible to all individuals. The development of privately owned platforms and spaces on this web to share ideas ended up being a biproduct of the internet’s creation. With these major corporations and governments controlling large portions of internet traffic, does the internet increase the free flow of information, or does it control information?

To begin, one only has to look at where the average person receives their news from. A study conducted by Harvard University showed that 55% of Americans kept up with daily news, and half of those individuals received their daily news from social media sights such as Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. All of these big websites are owned by huge businesses trying to influence and monetize their users. Another good example of just how many people use these big media sites, was a study done by Pew Research Center, “around seven-in-ten Americans use social media to connect with one another, engage with news content, share information and entertain themselves.” (Pew Research Center). This would mean over 238 million Americans use some sort of social media platform daily, being exposed to handpicked information designed to keep a user’s attention. This handpicked information rarely challenges the user’s personal views or gives apposing views. This intended exclusion from information leads to a biased, misinformed, and close-minded populace.

No matter how many people get their news from social media or similar sources, there still remains different avenues for the sharing of information and forming of discourse communities. While, “Social media has become an increasingly globalized communications tool and an important platform for delivering breaking news” (Social Media Defamation: A New Legal Frontier Amid the Internet Wild West) anyone can create a website and set up platforms where users can interact and share data. The internet is a lot more than just Google and Facebook. While a majority of society lacks the knowhow on creating their own website or platform, anyone, from any background, can create their own place on the internet. Searching the internet can provide many examples of these “single creator” websites, or places developed by just one person creating their own platform.

The internet also remains heavily unregulated in certain places. In the United States users of the web do have certain rules and standards to maintain. However, these rules and regulations are usually only get enforced on the surface web, or the parts of the internet most trafficked. The dark web, or the parts harder to reach and not as travelled, is estimated to make up over 85% of the internet. This dark web, in many experts’ opinions, is one of the most free and uncensored platforms in our modern-day world. Because most users intentionally use the dark web incognito or with an alias, tracking users and finding out real identities becomes much more challenging. This helps combat certain websites or companies from biasing their information for particular users.

Due to most of the internet being unregulated, available to anyone to edit, and a large majority of it being unknown, the internet increases the free flow of information. The internet offers a wide array of ways for anyone to share their own opinions and information. It also allows for the creation of like-minded groups and discussion boards. Information on websites and non-company ran sites, is unregulated and largely free. In conclusion, the use of the world wide web increases the free flow of information instead of controlling it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources

De-platformed: Social Network Censorship, The First Amendment and The Argument to Amend Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act -John A. LoNigro

“Post-fact, Post-truth Society” -Writing Arguments

Social Media Defamation: A New Legal Frontier Amid the Internet Wild West -Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy- Hadley M. Dreibelbis

Free Speech on Privately-Owned FORA: A Discussion on Speech Freedoms and Policy for Social Media -Colby M. Everett

Internet Suspensions and Separation of Powers: Changing the Equation -Devansh Kaushik

Public Attitudes Toward Technology Companies. PEW RESEARCH CENTER

With college tuition forever on the rise, more and more young men and women keep asking themselves, “Is college really worth the price?” Is a college education really worth the same amount as a house? Modern day, out of state college tuition, and even certain in state tuitions, can cost over $100,000 for all four years. This number doesn’t even take into account price of textbooks, cost of living or transportation. The one thing that’s certain is that modern education is more expensive than it has ever been, and it is still on the rise. A lot of people have tried to persuade the young that going to a technical/trade school would be more worth their dollar. Getting trained for an in-demand job that will always need people, is a greater guarantee that out of college one can land a job. This whole argument is summed up nicely in Rebecca Mead’s supposed unbiased piece, “Learning by Degrees.” Mead presents both sides of the argument and tries to end the back and forth open ended but clearly favors the side of college education using both a logos and pathos reasoning to support her claim.

To summarize, “Learning by Degrees” is a persuasive article that tries to convince the audience to get a college degree no matter the price of schooling. Mead starts the piece with a hook intended to scare or make the audience uneasy by sharing all the different majors and their respective percentages of finding a job right out of college. Mead continues with listing median incomes in the field in which that degree is associated with. Afterwards, Mead points out hypocrisy in those who hold PHD’s and other college degrees and continue to deny and steer others away from college. Mead goes on to acknowledge the opposition and their arguments, then refutes it by stating that the cost of school is outweighed by what one gains from a college education. Mead concludes in a way that illudes the reader into thinking that the article is unbiased. The final sentence of the conclusion, however, works in the favor of pro college side, “That way, regardless of each graduate’s ultimate path, all might be qualified to be carriers of arts and letters, of which the nation can never have too many.”

To start understanding Rebecca Mead’s work, one must first look at who she is and where she comes from. Mead, at the time of writing, “Learning by Degrees” was a 44-year-old staff writer for The New Yorker. She had been writing articles for The New Yorker since 1997. Pew Research found that 77% of readers of The New Yorker held left-of-center political leanings, while 52% of those readers hold, “constantly liberal” political views (Where news audiences fit on the political spectrum). Already with this information it can be assumed that before even writing the article, Mead would agree that all young students should pursue a college education. This already leads the reader to believe that the piece would have some bias one way or another. Writing a biased article is fine, but posing as an unbiased article while admittedly feeling strongly towards one side is not. These types of articles influence those who think they’re getting an equal view of both sides of the argument, while they’re being pushed one way or the other, depending on the personal views of the writer.

Secondly, the analyze a piece of literature, one must look at why that piece was written. Rebecca Mead’s, “Learning by Degrees”, was most likely written to increase the amount of young people enrolled and graduating from college. This is found in the third to last paragraph where it is stated, “As President, Obama has rightly noted that too many Americans are already skipping college or dropping out, even without economists having advised them to do so; within weeks of the Inauguration, he pledged to increase the national graduation rate, which is significantly lower than that of many other developed nations, including Canada, Japan, and Korea” (Mead 4). This article was more than likely written to increase not only those attending college, but college retention rate. The article probably has the secondary objective of informing readers in the benefits of a college education.

Mead is a solid writer and uses a lot of literary devices to influence the reader. One that stood out was her use of appealing to pathos. Throughout the article, Mead uses claims that will purposefully generate emotional responses from her readers. The first example of this is found in the opening paragraph, “the odds of stepping into a satisfying job, or, indeed, any job, are lower now than might have been imagined four long years ago, when the first posters were hung on a dorm-room wall, and having a .edu e-mail address was still a novelty.” (Learning By Degrees, 1) This use of pathos gives the reader a sense of worry and remembrance. The reader is worried that their degree, or possibly their children’s degree won’t mean anything in the coming years. The sense of remembrance is more seen in an older audience who remembers that going to college wasn’t always the norm, that going to any university would impress the ones around you. Another good use of pathos comes in the second to last paragraph, “Unaddressed in that calculus is any question of what else an education might be for: to nurture critical thought; to expose individuals to the signal accomplishments of humankind; to develop in them an ability not just to listen actively but to respond intelligently.” (Learning By Degrees, 4) This quote is an emotional claim for those to go to college by describing all the ways one could possibly better themselves by going to college. This claim was added in to try to negate the steep prices of college by saying, “even if you don’t get a job with your degree, here is how college will be better for you anyway.” With how the emotional claims are made, and based on who The New Yorker’s audience is, it can be inferred that these claims are more suited towards parents on the fence about sending their child to college. These pathos claims do well at persuading those who don’t understand the data or prefer listening to how they feel to make decisions.

Mead also appeals to the readers logical sense by offering facts and researched claims. The first fact she offers to the reader is found in the first paragraph, “The safest of all degrees to be acquiring this year is in accounting: forty-six per cent of graduates in that discipline have already been offered jobs.” (Learning by Degrees 2) This statistic goes to show that right out of college, 46% of graduates with that specific degree have already been offered jobs. Mead also goes on to discuss how much the average person in these fields makes, “Economics majors aren’t doing badly, either: their starting salary averages about fifty thousand a year, rising to a mid-career median of a hundred and one thousand.” (Learning by Degrees, 2) These statics support her argument that a college degree is worth the price.

In conclusion, Mead presents an article intended for a left leaning audience. Mead used specific emotional and logical appeals to prove to her audience and others, how important and useful getting a college degree is. Mead strongly concluded that a college degree is worth it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Where News Audiences Fit on the Political Spectrum.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project, Pew Research Center, 18 Aug. 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/interactives/media-polarization/outlet/new-yorker/.

“Learning By Degrees.” The New Yorker, 07 June. 2010, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/06/07/learning-by-degrees