According to the article we read about Why Media Spreads, the original definition of viral was “describing (generally bad) ideas that spread like germs” (17). This makes going viral seem like a very negative thing; however, today when a video or picture goes viral online it is generally in a positive sense. It usually means that the material was extremely funny or memorable, so people share it online continuously until many people have seen it.
This article provides a video mashup of the most viral videos from 2014. They vary from people being daredevils to just dogs being cute. I believe the common thing between all of these videos is that they arouse the viewer emotionally. From another article we read in class about what makes a video go viral, we learned that there were many different factors that lead to people wanting to share a video. In my opinion, the emotional reason is why most people share videos and other things on the internet. If something appeals to someone’s emotions, they are going to want other people to feel the same way. They are curious if other people will feel the same way about a video.
This video about a Ted Talk from Kevin Allocca tells that videos go viral because of “case-makers, communities of participation, and unexpectedness”. I believe his point about unexpectedness is very important because going back to what I said before, if someone sees something unexpected or crazy then they are going to want other people to see it too to see what their reaction is.
So, my opinion is clear that I think emotion is the main reason why videos and other material goes viral. What do you think the major contributor that urges people to share things online is? Do you agree with me? Do you think it is something from the article we read in class? Or something completely different? What is your opinion?
From our reading about Online Harassment we discovered that people are getting harassed frequently online. The article gives a stat that 73% of online users have reported seeing someone being harassed; this could be anywhere from just name-calling to someone being stalked.
In my opinion there are certain types of harassment that can be avoided or ignored. Such as simply name-calling where the internet user can just move along and ignore the other person and avoid contact with them. I think the majority of online harassment can be avoided; however, I think the lines of harassment are crossed when someone gets a hold of someone else’s personal information. When someone gets another person’s personal email or address, they can continuously contact and threaten that person to the point where they become scared for their own safety. I think a good example of this is from when we talked about revenge porn in class. If someone has explicit photos of another person and wishes to blackmail them, they can potentially ruin their life by posting their naked photos online for anyone to see. This could affect potential employment and other friendships. In the video we watched in class the one woman said she was pushed to the point of wanting to end her life because the images that were put online were ruining her life.
Another example of severe harassment can occur in sports. A recent example is the punter for Michigan. He dropped a snap on a punt and Michigan State recovered it for a game winning touchdown. Michigan fans put full blame for the loss on the punter and let him have it on social media. This article shows some of the “nicer” tweets that were said about the punter, but there were others giving him death threats and telling him that he should commit suicide. Another article shows a video on how to handle a situation like this in a civil manner. They talk about in the video that the player is just a kid and it is not like he wanted to do it or he did it on purpose. The first article also shows tweets that are in the punter’s favor that say he is just a kid, he is trying his best, and he does not deserve anything that he is getting. Even I, as an Ohio State fan who loves to see Michigan lose, do not think this kid deserves anything he is getting on social media.
What do you think? Where should we draw the line when it comes to online harassment?
Christopher Long claims that he used live-tweeting in several lectures in his article. He also says that he plans to continue to use live-tweeting in his future lectures; specifically the one coming up at his alma mater.
Long compares live-tweeting to interactive note taking. He believes that it can heighten the attention of listeners and get them more involved in the conversation. I agree with him that live-tweeting could get viewers more involved in a lecture; however, I also believe that getting on twitter in the middle of a lecture can be very distracting to someone and they may get side-tracked from the material in the lecture.
In this article written by Carolyn Thomas, she describes the issues that may occur because of live tweeting. She claims to be a part of both sides of the live-tweeting spectrum. She has live-tweeted a presentation before and has given presentations while people were live-tweeting. The problems she sees with live-tweeting are that before she even begins her lecture, her audience has their noses in their phones or laptops and they do not seem very engaged in the conversation. Another problem that she has discovered is that some speakers need their audience to be engaged to have a successful presentation. This is not possible if they are on their phones half of the time and not giving their undivided attention.
A good example of someone using live-tweeting in a beneficial way is Bernie Sanders live-tweeting the first GOP primary debate. This article has a great video that shows how Sanders used live-tweeting. He made a tweet about certain topics that were being discussed, so that his followers could see what his opinion on the subject was. It was almost as if he was a part of the debate even though he was not actually speaking in it. People could see his views on many different aspects of the presidential race.
Do you think that live-tweeting has a positive or negative effect on presentations, lectures, or other things?
I believe the Gender Gap reading we did in class makes a good segue into talking about the role gender plays in other topics as well. The way it affects the contributions into Wikipedia may not seem like such a big deal, but there are other ways that gender roles can have a big effect on things.
In my opinion the gender role has changed significantly over time. In this article it talks about old TV shows and movies in which the typical family picture was portrayed. One in which the man would be off at work all day supporting his family financially while the woman would be home making meals and taking care of the kids. Over time our society has made change for the better. I believe women have a lot to offer to this world and them sitting at home cooking meals all day does not allow them to make the difference that they can. A big role for the woman is to be a mother to her children, which is very important; however, a mother can take care of her children all while taking on a full time job to help support the family financially.
Another big difference between men and women is the amount of money women earn in the work force. In this article, it states that as of 2010 women only make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. Even with the great strides in inequality that have been made, there is still a clear gender gap.
This is an image of women protesting how much they are earning from a long time ago.
This is an image of women protesting for the same thing in a recent protest. So, even with the advances being made it is clear that we still have some work to do in our society.
What may be some things that we can change to give better equality in our society?