Blog Post # 2

For the second half of Reed's book, Reed continues along the vein of the pros and cons of digital technologies. Chapter 6, "Does the Internet Have a Political Bias?" delves into intricate political issues like Obama's run for president during both elections. I found this section particularly compelling section because of my interest in politics. The '08 campaign for both Obama and McCain marked a shift away from advertisements made only by the politician's ad campaigners to regular folks making youtube videos in support (or opposition to) the candidate. I was fascinated at how people were getting involved with the process in ways that were, until then, unheard of. Anyone could make a video for youtube for millions to see, and the best part was that the candidate didn't have to spend funds on these videos, yet reaped the benefits of more exposure. The videos showed what was on the minds of Americans: why they supported who they did, for what reasons, and in some cases had a more authentic feel than videos disseminated by a politician's supporters.

Reed doesn't just limit the conversation to obvious political issues. On page 130 Reed riffs off of Ella Baker with differentiating between mobilizing and organizing people for a movement; "Mobilization refers to the process by which inspirational leaders or other persuaders can get large numbers to join a movement or engage in a particular movement action. Organization entails a more sustained process as people come to deeply understand a movement's goals and their own power to change themselves and the world." This lengthy quote contributes to Reed's argument by drawing attention to the various ways people make political statements on facebook et al., and also contemplates how much, or little, an act is politically. An example to illuminate what I'm trying to say, Reed offers the example of The Harry Potter Alliance, an online community whose members think through social justice and literacy issues by using the Potter books as a template. Reed enumerates the changes this group was able to make globally, and uses it as an example of how apathy and inertia isn't as widespread that some folks think (130). Yet, the pendulum can swing the other way. Reed gives examples on the other side such as hate groups creating pages that would catfish folks who use certain keywords, allowing them to spread their ideas to unsuspecting people (131).

As mentioned above, I found this chapter compelling because of the own questions it lead me to raise. How much 'civic' is in a movement when that movement is online? Why would people prefer to protest over, say, facebook rather than march in a rally? There's (potentially) less to lose with an online forum than having to march: there's no police officers armed with mace online. There's less personal human interaction online than in real life. Yet, as I thought about that last one, I immediately thought about the Bob Dylan (yes, I can feel your eyes rolling, but deal with it) fan club I'm apart of on facebook. I was reading a post by a fellow a few days ago where he wrote about his nephew battle with a disease (I don't remember which one now), and how Dylan's music helped pull both he and his nephew through a difficult time. Granted, this bloke could have been lying, but to what end? And, maybe just maybe, he was more authentic because he didn't have to say difficult things face-to-face, but rather monitor-to-monitor. I don't think there's an easy answer to this question, and I'm still working this one out for myself. I was yet again impressed by the level of detail Reed put into this book. It seems to me like no stone went uncovered. Reed expertly ties these, sometimes seemingly disparate ideas together to show that there's a lot to consider with regard to digital technology, and to not get carried away by saying that it's the best or that it's the worst thing for humanity.

Chapter 7 had me rollin' my eyes at the title. It's a tired old argument that games make us more violent and sex-crazed. Reed brought up many good points for why games don't do this, namely that there are lots of gamers out there who don't commit crimes. And, again, it's the age-old argument that TV, music, you name it, makes us this or that. But, it was important that Reed include this chapter. It would have been remiss to not consider the ways in which race, gender, and class are played out on games, and how that supports/subverts normative thoughts. What I mean by that is how, "people way be more actively engaging the stereotypes, may, for example, be killing racially coded aliens or fantasy creatures. or shooting 'redskins.'" I don't know much about gaming, so I hadn't thought about the implications of the roles some characters in games play, and how they're (mis)representations of marginalized groups.

For chapter 8, "Are Kids Getting Dumber as Their Phones Get Smarter" speaks to the pedagogical side of me, and how I'm trying to shape the way things are played out in class. One idea contained within the chapter really jumped out at me: "But what are we making of all this information? Information, after all, is not knowledge..., and knowledge is not wisdom..." (164). This reminded me of when the printing press first came into play and the explosion of information that accompanied it. It marked a time where there was an abundance of stuff being put out for anyone to see, and it changed how people processed the information. The same thing is happening now, and we gotta sift through the information, asking good questions along the way to find the truer of info out there.
This chapter includes proponents and naysayers alike in how much (or not at all) technology should(n't) be used in the classroom. "This should be seen as neither a cause for alarm nor elation because computers are neither the problem nor the solution to issues in education in the twenty-first century" (166). In the link I have included below, while super-interesting and thought provoking- ends with the notion that "some say technology can save us." What I have appreciated throughout Reed's book is his treatment of technological determinism, urging us all to not say tech is what'll save everything, or destroy everything. Reed points out that technology is a tool and as any tool it's only as good as the person using it. Agreed.

Chapter 9 had me thinking about folks Reed identifies as the "don't wants" (189). Hmm, I hadn't thought about it in that way before. Reed makes the analogy of folks who prefer vinyl to those weirdos who think digital music is better. Obviously I am in the former rather than the latter camp. So the idea of people not wanting to bother with digital technology should also be considered in a broad talk about technology issues. This, yet again again, made me marvel at how much Reed included in his book.