Interesting Illustrations to check out, if you have time.

"Our Maddening Relationshop with Tech"

Just came across this little article about a French illustrator who has some interesting work reflecting technology and how it has been affecting society today, a bit quirky, but very though provoking IMO. Check him out, if you want....


Also, check out this article and see if you agree with what it's describing, if you want.

(then re-read this blog-post and reevaluate your opinion on the article ;) )

Blogging Article

http://nms.sagepub.com/content/14/5/781.abstract

Blogging article.

I would look through New Media in Society as well as other SAGE Journals.

We Are Anonymous...for Pam

I came across this book the other day, I remember you (Pam) mentioning Anonymous so I thought I should share. Not sure if it will act as a credible source for your research, but thought you might find it interesting! Here's the link: We Are Anonymous

If You're Going to Procrastinate on these Annotated Bibliographies...

...you might as well read this:

The Power of Structured Procrastination :: Tips :: 99U

I am a productive human being! :)

Digital Rhetorics on the Brain

So, I realized that I had drawn out all of my notes on chapters 6,7 and 8 and had this grand plan of redesigning them and editing them to share with everyone, but instead, I ended up coming across this song by the rapper/singer Mackelmore, he's recently become quite popular, but I was listening to some of his older work and came across the song I will post below, "White Privilege". Hearing the song reminded me of so many things having to do with the interweb, technology, Nakamura, and oh-so-much more of what we have been discussing in Digital Rhetorics and Web Design. From race issues (Nakamurak, Menu-Driven Identities, p. 107-111) online to the concept of media going viral (Warneick & Heinman p. 63), it completely captivated me (**AND it's relation to this whole "Harlem Shake" media epidemic). I drew up some notes about it, and am going to attempt to post a low quality picture of them, so sorry if they are difficult to read. **Also, I just went to get the video to post below and its a wonderful digital artifact to discuss in itself with the creators choice of images, text and arrangement of the video. See what you think....

*My notes should be attached at the bottom

and here is the

Macklemore video:
"White Privilege" - Mackelmore
I'm having some technical diifficulty posting the video and image from my tablet. I will fix it tomorrow, but I can't withhold this anymore!

p.s. This is so interesting!

invitational rhetoric

Foss and Griffin 1992

6,7, and done

Chapter Six looked at identity.  Some of it was quite familiar in other readings I’ve done about identity and rhetoric. However, I did find the idea of interpellation interesting. In the book it  describes it as how the media is inviting and makes the person want to read and I think this is a good point. While some social media can be argued as pandering I don’t think that is what interpellation means. After all, I don’t blame someone for wondering ‘why is this worth my time?’ or ‘why should I pay attention to this?’ If people want to hear about something the story will be better told.

Chapter seven deals with the rhetoric around hacking; specifically hacking as a form of protest. It brings up two definitions that became very important throughout the reading; hackavist and cyberterrorism. I agree with one of the arguments they were making; cyberterrorism as a concept is growing out of control and is now more of a scare tactic then anything else. You can’t just take every act of hacking and put it under terrorism; not only is it too broad of a definition to be useful it is also just too triggering. There is too much rhetorical baggage behind the word terrorism, baggage that shouldn’t be attached to certain forms of hacking. This hacking concept was being talked about under the broad idea of digital protest and I have to say I did find it rather interesting. There have been several examples of cyber protests and they are growing more and more popular all the time. The book brings up the good point that a lot of the talk around digital protesting also has to do with how society views the internet and technology in general; some clearly don’t understand it and therefore want to control it.

Chapter Eight: This chapter was the conclusion of the book and basically took the time to wrap up everything that’s been talked about. It also brought home the idea that rhetoric discourse can be and should be applied to what is happening ith today’s technology.

A missing side bar (the effects of mechanics on rhetoric)

This is just a brief idea that I noticed that I felt like bringing up for discussion to the class.

When I am on Facebook on my laptop - the computer I am usually on 80% of the time - I do not have the sidebar on the right hand side that gives you constant feedback about what your friends are doing. I'm not sure why - my guess is some sort of glitch during an upgrade. But I have noticed the other 20% of the time I'm on another computer how amazingly different the experience of Facebook is without that bar. With the feedback Facebook takes on a new level of stalking because suddenly I notice every single thing my friends are doing on their  Facebooks. Things that don't even show up on my feed.

I think it's interesting that 1) Facebook does want me to know all this information in the bar (since my missing sidebar facebook is the glitch) and 2) that it does change the feel of Facebook - maybe even how I use Facebook - with this mechanic either there or not there.

This makes me wonder about other mechanics on website and how they would be different rhetorically if one of their mechanics are missing. It doesn't even have to be a major mechanic - it's not like my Facebook no longer works since I don't have it.

Rhetoric Online - 6, 7, 8

Chapter Six: This chapter talked a lot about identification. This was a confusing topic to me at first, because I've never considered it in this sense before. Burke says identification is "changing a thing's nature". This was interesting to me, because I feel that identification isn't so much changing something, but defining it. For example, if I identify myself as a a sorority member, that doesn't mean I suddenly become a sorority member. Likewise, if I identify myself as a quiet person, that's not changing my nature at all, because I've always been quiet. I don't know, I guess I was just a bit confused by what he said. He also says how rhetoric creates shifts in attitude. This I agree with and understand because to me, rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and when you persuade someone to something, their attitude (usually) changes.

I also found the section about "social pizza" very interesting. Of all corporations in the world, pizza ones are the ones using social media the most successfully? Domino's, for example, their online sales accounted for more than 60% of their business! This, though, I can identify with. I really don't like talking on the phone, and I can recall a few years ago I made my friend call in to order a pizza because I wouldn't do it. I can see the allure of online ordering, and being able to track your order. It also says how they invite their customers to interact with the business through competitions and offering opinions and suggestions.

This chapter also touched on identity, which I am fascinated by in the digital sphere. They said that technology has changed the way we construct, present, and understand our identity. This is true, in my opinion. They also mention that the very act of assuming an "online identity" means that it is somehow different than their offline identity. However, they also say most people who join under a "different identity" don't change their "normal, material practices" much. This is interesting to me because I know so many people who want to be different, and when they're online they think they are, when they don't actually act or speak any differently. I appreciated how the book touched on that.

Chapter Seven: Hactivism, wow. This was really interesting. I've been intrigued by hacking (if only because I'm slightly jealous of those that know programming enough to do it) since I was young. The examples they gave were just incredible. Let me start by defining my definition of hacktivism. From what I understand, it's hacking online for political purposes, usually of capturing information with the intent to share it. It also stated there was no "standard" method of hactivisim, which is very true of most things, I think. The examples they gave were of such high scale I found them captivating. The attack on the Department of Defense for example. The internet was started mostly as a tool for national defense, and to think that they're the ones who got hacked is a bit scary to think. It means no one is safe.

The list they gave for the analogous narratives were interesting and helped to define hackers for me. Hackers are hidden and must be found. It amuses me how people can be hidden on the internet. Yes, it's a big place, but to me, everything is open, and there are few "hiding places". Hackers move quickly and by surprise. This is kind of a duh for me. If they didn't move quickly or by surprise, they wouldn't get their task done; they'd be shut down much sooner. Hackers don't follow the standard rules of engagement. If they followed the standard rules, hacking wouldn't be nearly as effective. Hackers are always in our midst. This makes sense to me. Of course they'd be normal citizens who don't seem to have that shady aura about them. That's what makes hacking so interesting to me. You never know who...

Chapter Eight: This chapter summed everything up nicely, I thought. It brought in aspects from all chapters, and what I thought) the most interesting aspects of each, such as the parodies. Overall, I think this book was good. It taught me a lot about digital media that I didn't already know.

Rhetoric Online 6,7, and 8

Chapter 6: This chapter uses Burke to illustrate how rhetorical theorists can use rhetoric to discuss the credibility of different social media sites, such as ones that are used in political campaigns. It's interesting how websites that are technically "non-political" are strangely political in a hidden way. A politician can relate to their audience through seeing what they "like" on Facebook. For instance, they brought up the idea that a politician talked about "being a farmboy" and I think that they may have gotten that over a lot of comments on an agricultural status.

Chapter 7: Most of the book has been used to discuss how politicians use online media as a way to promote their campaign, while there are also websites that can bash a politician or expose them. For example, the website WikiLeaks has successfully used hacktivism (hacking for the common good) to expose politicians for their hidden agendas. I find it interesting that I did not see them mention the group Anonymous once during this chapter, and yet the majority of the attacks that they mentioned are actually linked to the group.

Chapter 8: Rhetorical theory allows us to discuss the credibility of the online world and then allows us to better understand the physical world around us. If we have no way of critiquing and understanding the hidden agendas of different interest groups, we can easily be manipulated into something that we don't want for ourselves or our society. I think that is what the main idea of the book is about. We need to better illustrate our understanding of digital rhetoric so that we can change the way that we see the world.

Rhetoric Online 3, 4, and 5

Chapter 3: Interactivity is something that can be very useful in website architecture, but it can also be very detrimental. When you post to someone's blog, it can easily be off topic of the actual original post. What happens if someone comments to your post? Then another person comments on theirs? It's like a game of telephone, right? Mix this in with politics, and you've got a serious controversy on your hands. However, they can be very useful in a call for change as well. Journalists often use online blogging as a way to get comments from readers on specific political issues that they can write on and circulate into the hands of legislatures to create change in the U.S. (well, we only hope we can, anyway).

Chapter 4: A hamster playing the video got more views than Obama's inauguration speech? Viral videos are about as dangerous as blog posts. They can either be extremely helpful, or they are just plain stupid. I'm sorry, but I really just don't get the reason why almost all videos that go viral are completely pointless (Harlem Shake?) Viral videos are a lot of the reason that people are made famous - and I guess that's somewhat important in some way (I'm sure we could have lived without Justin Bieber, though). There is a novelty behind viral videos on the web, in that everyone wants to be part of the history when people look back on them and say "Hey, remember that YouTube clip?" However, they are something that can easily be rhetorically criticized for not being very accurate most of the time and really having no use to them other than pure entertainment.

Chapter 5: Intertextuality - the relationship between texts. Great! Now that that's out of the way. More and more online commentators are moving towards the idea of using other texts as a way to critique media. For instance, this whole class has been based around the idea of using Aristotle's ideas of rhetoric to define "digital rhetorics" and the relationship between rhetorical appeal and the online world that our society today thrives on. I think that the quote about "the more we know, the more we see" really hold true here. The more educated we are on a certain aspect (such as rhetoric) the more we can really look into the credibility of something, such as a website.

the Shorty awards for Twitter

On this snow day when all my grading is done, I find myself working on curriculum...sad, I know, but that's the life of a prof. As I was (re)searching social media like Twitter, I came across the Shorty Awards. I'm not sure what to think of institutionalizing things that by definition are counterculture or un- or potentially anti- institutional. Any thoughts?

Digital Dialectic of Harlem Shake?

I thought that this video was fascinating considering the popularity of "Harlem Shake" videos on youtube. Any thoughts?


Okay so this dialectic really sat in my craw...For a longer post, see my post on my personal/professional blog

Speaking of interactivity, as I continue to read and post for web design and digital rhetoric, I feel like I am partaking and contributing to interactivity. My only question is which kind of interactivity is it?

"The gold fleece of the Internet"

These three chapters covered quite a little handful of information, from interactivity and identification to interactivity and circulation and web reading.

First things first, we get a slight definition for interactivity, "an attribute of tech functions of the medium such as hyperlinking, activating media downloads, filling in feedback forms and online games" Basically, when user's are interacting with one another/the computer/machine.

There were numerous terms that stood out to me within this reading, and as much as I would like to format them into a flowing composition, there is so much information held within them that I am going to simply list them below, some with brief descriptions:

reactive interactivity

quasiinteractive

noninteractive

text-based interactivity

*much of these terms were used and discussed page 53 about the involvement of voters and the increase in political processes online.

Next up was McMillan,

user-to-user
-between users
-blogs w/ comments and discussions

user-to-system-computer controlled
-computer will "present" information to ppl who will respond
-clicking hyperlinks and customizing features

user-to-document
-recipients of messages develop texts/information that change the site info.(<----I was thinking kinda like wikipedia??)
-co-creators
-users invited to submit content, and content is displayed

Next up, the concept of viral videos were discussed. And from these popularity, response and novelty...were the biggies (terms). This is also where the concept of interactivity and circulation were discussed (65)

After class I will return to give you guys my 411 on "rhizomatic travel," "uptake" and "web reading"

See you, like, now!

4,5,6

Hey, interactivity. That word sure looked familiar…

“Online interactivity…functions as a means of activating user responses and as a mode of address that can influence users and can itself be rhetorical in it’s effects.” This really made me think of the topic I’m going to be doing for my paper. I feel that in World of Warcraft interactivity are users communicating with each other. But the tools that the users have been given – and how the function – have a strong rhetorical value and also have their own level of interactivity. I feel this form of text-based interactivity that the game pervades for it’s users not only effects the overall game style but also effects the gamer culture community within the context of WOW. It may be even argued – though I may not because this may be another paper – that World of Waracraft’s strong influence on the gaming industry means this form of interactivity and the arguments that it makes have leaked out into other games.

 The fourth chapter looked at the rhetoric behind what I would almost think of as the viral thought process online. While looking at how a viral video becomes a viral video and what this could mean rhetorically was interesting I think the more important part of this chapter for me was circulation. This concept of reproduce, transport and shared stored information is a huge part of recent social media and is taking over the internet as a whole. I think this concept is going to get more and more important as the internet develops.

The fifth chapter went back to interextuality to look at it’s rhetorical function. Interextuality is how different texts are connected – so it’s easy to see how this would be applied to the internet. The idea of Burke’s ‘unending conversation’does sound interesting (though don’t make me read it!) because I do think this idea can be applied to the internet. The rhetoric of the internet is just not the text but all the connections of the texts; not only the text but the space in between. 

thought about Orwell's 1984 twice during this reading

Here is the Macintosh 1984 advertisement to help our discussion of intertextuality. :) What are people's thoughts on this video in relation to how we understand digital rhetorics?

Burke's "unending conversation" reference

Hey all,
Thought that you might be interested in a palatable Burke reference-enter into the Parlor. :)

Rhetoric Online 3, 4, 5

Chapter Three: Interactivity - I thought I knew what interactivity was before I read this chapter. Apparently it's much more in depth than I thought it was. I liked that the chapter said users must actively attend and respond to messages in order for there to be interactivity. This is what I envisioned interactivity to be. The chapter also talked about text-based interactivity through the use of first person or active and passive voice. This was a new concept to me, since I've never thought about text being interactive before, but when I think about it, it definitely is interactive. It's really hard to read a text and not react in some way. The chapter then said these were rhetorical features of the internet. I like how it keeps tying back into rhetoric, since my own definition of rhetoric is still growing and expanding.

The chapter also went into user-to-system, user-to-user, and user-to-document interactivity. These were fun to read about, at least for me. The idea of user to system interactivity hit me as being a bit more complicated than the other two, but still a manageable idea. The examples of hyperlinks, gaming functions, and user forms helped this idea to be a bit more concrete for me. The idea of user to user interactivity is the most familiar to me, since this is what interactivity is most closely related to (for me). This reminds me of comments or messages that go back and forth between users. It's not user to system because you're not interacting with the system, you're simply using it as a tool to interact with other users. User to document interactivity is the newest one I've encountered, especially through Google Docs, which my classes have been utilizing more and more. This is a really cool concept for me because of the idea that one document can exist that several people can edit.

Chapter Four: Circulation and Rhetorical Uptake - This chapter began by talking about viral videos, which was cool for me because I have seen what they are and have participated in making some viral through watching them and sharing them. The chapter listed three basic requirements. First, the video must be viewed a large number of times in a short amount of time. Second, the video must generate a large number of responses. Finally, the video uses pathos and novelty. These requirements are all pretty basic to me, but maybe it's just because I've grown up in the digital era and am familiar with the concept already. The rest of the chapter was a bit more in depth, however.

There was one quote which I want to touch on briefly, because it stood out to me. It's, "subtexts affect not only how we listen and read but also how we are prepared to listen and read." This was really cool and interesting to me because it's sort of a backwards way of thinking, but it's true. You can't read and absorb text if you're not prepared for it. The type and depth of the material also affects how you listen and read as well. For example, if you read a children's story you will likely read in depth, word for word, since the concepts are all very basic and engaging. If it's academic material, however, you may skim the material as opposed to reading word for word because you may not be prepared enough.

The Lady Gaga video example was really interesting to read. The lack of all that made her famous I think helped the message to go viral. If Gaga was wearing some flashy outfit full of color, the message wouldn't have been received so seriously or so well. The chapter then talked about the parodies that had been made about the video. This made me think of Weird Al Yankovic because in my mind, he represents parody. Just a side note. There was a quote in this chapter which said, "circulation in a hyper-mediated environment is not seizure of power, but rather a release of control". This is meaningful to me, especially in relation to the Gaga video because you can't expect to control something you put online. If you put up a video and it goes viral, it's not a sign of power, but a sign saying you lost control (sometimes on purpose) of the video. This also relates to the parodies because when you put up a video, anyone can parody it. I found it really rather sad when they said the political viral videos still have less viewership than cute hamsters or a cat playing a piano. It makes me think what our world is coming to.

Chapter Five: Intertextuality and Web Based Public Discourse - This chapter brought a lot of new ideas to my attention. The entire idea of intertextuality is new to me, and I like it. It's fascinating. I like the idea that everything is (or has the power to be) related. When I was reading about this, I instantly thought of my favorite author, Sarah Dessen. When she writes a book, she relates it to other books she's written. What I mean is she'll write just a sentence in one book about a couple in a booth in running clothes, and then another book will focus entirely on that couple. Or she'll mention a town name in passing in one book, but it will be the setting of another book. I think this is genius when she does this. It also brought up the idea of familiarity that was mentioned in the chapter. They say if you're unfamiliar with politics, then some political parodies will be meaningless to you. Well, same thing. If you haven't read any of Dessen's books but one, you wouldn't know that couple is the focus of another book or that that town isn't just mentioned in passing, but it has a deeper meaning. I love the idea because it's almost like a secret, which I think makes the message (be it political or fictional) more meaningful.

The chapter also talked about allegories and articulation. These terms are a bit fuzzier for me. Allegories make sense, though it takes me a few seconds to understand them. The chapter says it's a specific way of reading a text. This, I think, means the reader takes their outside knowledge into the reading. For example, if I were really religious, I may pick up on religious connotations in a reading, where as if I wasn't religious, they would completely slip on by me. I think this goes back to how much background knowledge a reader has about a certain text. An articulation is the form of the connection that a reader can make between two things or elements. This didn't fully make sense to me, but I think it's related to the above rants I have written, that an element can be related to something else - though it may not HAVE to be related or doesn't matter to the story.

Blogger and academic freedom

Hey ladies!

The Chronicle of Higher Education just posted this story about how somelibrarians rally behind blogger in connection with academic freedom.

video game advertising

I forgot to mention you should look at the journal "Critical Studies in Communication" as well. I found an article there on video game advertising.

Online Rhetoric...I dislike Politics..

These first two chapters were so pack-full of information and citations and concepts and ideas and terms and ....whew I could go on. The most prevalent topic in the two chapters was digital/online rhetorics role and affect on the last two presidential/political campaigns. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all about the concept of rhetoric in online spaces, social meda/networking and technology...but NOT politics, although there were some good terms to digest and that the political situations made excellent examples of. As you heard in class today, I was hoping to analyze Jodi Dean's work, but was unable to attain the article (I'm getting it now though!) but I did look into Clay Shirky, which was equally as interesting. Having already discussed his concepts with you, I'm going to share with you ladies the notes I took on these chapters, or at least on the terms that stood out to me. 

(I apologize for the handwriting)

observation and the internet

Hey all, just remember this book, iSpy, and thought that you all (Pam in particular) might be interested. :) Oh and this article on Google!

Trying to find articles

Over the course of my researching career I've found a few ways to do this.

• Once you find an article you like look up the author. They have probably written several articles on the topic you're interested in.
• Use Google Scholar - it has a lot of tools. Not only can it find articles but underneath each result option it has links such as 'related articles' and 'cited by'. These can also give you a weath of information

Article form Online Rhetoric

Please hyperlink to your article in this post or as a comment to this post.

Rhetoric Online Chapters 1 and 2

If I am understanding this correctly, I think that chapter one is supposed to act almost like another preface to the book. It lets us know that the book is about describing the digital world in a public sense. It will explain the rhetoric of the online world through discussing various economic and political shifts. They use this as a way to explain the shift in the digital sphere because a lot of the activity that goes on online is related to social and political shifts within the world.

Chapter two goes in to explaining more of how rhetorical theory gives us the tools to study the relationship between technological and cultural change. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was able to use the web as a very successful way to attract voters and revenue for his campaign. In the 2010 election, however, this activity decreased. There were more ways to learn about the candidates (apps, social media, etc...) but this was probably the same reason that activity decreased. The reputability of the candidates went down because they had more than just one website (and not too many people trust what they hear on social networking sites).

I'm curious, however, how identity comes into play with politics. Candidates (and those already in office) have been shifting more and more towards putting more information online, but what is their identity in the digital sphere? We know ours just by looking at our Facebook's or Twitters or other social networking sites (you can clearly tell from mine that I'm a journalist), but can you tell who they are? Other than a politician, obviously. 

Rhetoric Online Ch 1 and 2

I think this is going to turn out to be an interesting book (besides the fact they talked about 4chan in their first chapter).

The first chapter was focused on how what is public has changed recently. They talk about many different people who have written on the concept of the private space; from the concept of the idea that the public space is made to be a sort of educating forum to the fact that the public space is often a place where many badly represented groups are left out. They connected this idea of public spaces to technology by talking about social media websites, MMOs, and even 4chan (which kind of made my day, because if you went back even a year and told me I would have a text book that mentions 4chan I would have laughed in your face).

I found this interesting because when it comes to a digital space, the idea of what is private and what is public has been something I thought a lot about. There are places like Facebook where I’ve seen both comments from my friend on how ‘this private conversation doesn’t need to be showing up on their feed’ to my dad sending me funny images in a private message that could just have easily been posted to my wall. I think the concept of public and private is something we are still trying to understand on the internet.

In the second chapter they talked about political rhetoric in digital media. They looked at Obama’s campaign and how it used everything from Twitter to Iphone Apps. They even used more advance softway applications such as something called "sentiment" analysis. Above all they talked about how this use of digital media effected the campaign and how this is overall reflected in the study of new media.

I remember being effected by this – Obama had the best run Tumblr blog I’ve ever seen a political person have. It had a very good rhetorical appeal – to have a man who wanted to be my president trying to reach me in a way I normally communicated (I swear this is a case of déjà vu; I think I’ve talked about this for another blog post in one of Wendy’s classes). As digital media gets more and more common I have a feeling this will become the norm. More ideas in the world will find a space online; if they already have not. Everyone - from businesswomen to consumers - have had to find a place online and this is why the rhetoric online has been growing and developing. 

Women in Gaming

Saw this call and thought of you ladies.

Rhetoric Online - Chapters 1 & 2

Well, these chapters were certainly interesting. Chapter one had a lot of points that stood out to me for various reasons. First, the context of social media as a "private sphere". To me, this is true. When I post on Facebook or on my blog, I'm very well aware that anyone with internet access can see my posts, thus making it very public. However, I don't think people would really care about what I post, and would just gloss over what I say, which, in turn, makes it a bit more private - at least in my eyes. A second point was about creating a neutralized space online. The book says that simply creating a space and saying that it's neutral doesn't make it so. I've never thought about it before, but this is true. Facebook was created as a neutral zone, but once a user creates a profile, it's no longer neutral. What I mean is that a user has their own set of friends, their own morals, their own set of "likes" and groups, and they may not always coincide with another Facebook user, which can create hostilities, which de-neutralize the setting.

The chapter also talked about scandals and political opponents. They say that for major politicians, scandals are detrimental, since the public will follow the scandal details. The example they gave was Obama's speech referring to a racial, religious video spread online. Obama was well known, and when this video came out, it was a big deal. Obama responded by making his own video addressing the issue. He then sent it online, which hit YouTube and went viral. I'm not political. I'll say that right now. I don't follow the issues or anything relating to political elections. This being said, I've never considered how political elections could/do use the internet and social media to achieve their goals. I did like the comment that, "negative images have a more powerful effect on voting behavior than positive images". This is true, even for me.

The idea of "infotainment" is new and interesting too. I agree with the fact that users only really follow news that pertains directly to themselves. This is me; I don't care much about news unless it's directly related to me. I think this could be because a lot of the information is too complex for me to understand, since I don't have the background of politics  This being said, infotainment sounds like a good idea to me because I would get the news in a way that doesn't bore or confuse me.

The section about Wikileaks was interesting too because I've heard of the site (obviously), but I've never been to it or used it. I agree with the message/point behind the site, though. I think information should be shared around with people so that everyone has the same news. However, I think there is a point when too much information occurs. The book mentioned something about sharing a document with informant names. I think this may have gone too far, because I know that with politics there is a lot of issues and conflicts that arise. If this was a big document, those informants may be in danger now because this document was posted. I found that to be interesting, I guess.

This chapter also talked about counter-public's, Anonymous, hacktivists, and truthers. These subjects were interesting to me to read about too, because I've never heard of any of these things, but they all seem to make sense. Also, identity, the Cloud, citizen journalism, communities, and sub-cultures. Again, these were all fascinating to read about and I hadn't considered much of these topics before.

Chapter two was a bit confusing for me in the beginning, because it was mostly about politics and I don't follow politics. Then it got better. The chapter talked about how Obama had moved the younger voters through the internet. It talked about how politicians have mobile apps to promote themselves now, which I think is cool. The book also talked about how they (the politicians) don't fully utilize the medium, however. I also had never heard of cyber-squatting before. This was a really interesting term to me. Thinking about it, though, if I were someone important, someone who had a large public reputation that was important to me, or even someone who thought I'd eventually be important, I think I'd buy all web addresses related to me to protect myself. It's not hard to redirect all the URL's to one website either, so it wouldn't be hard and you wouldn't have to create more than one website.

This chapter also talked about identities online in social media, specifically through MUD's. This tied everything in together for me. They also introduced the Tea-Party Network. This was cool to read about because it seemed like a basic version of Facebook that has selective entry. I think this site is genius by doing so, however. By making the site exclusive, they can limit entry to those who are passionate about politics while at the same time inciting others to become more passionate so that they can be granted access. This is also genius in that it guides it's users to only talk about and discuss politics, not their personal lives. 

Psssst

As I've been working on my paper and looking for more sources, I've had several interesting finds. One is a blog, that is based on digital rhetorics, Digital Rhetoric Collaborative . The other is an article by Mary E. Hocks, which has a bit more focus on visual rhetorics, but definitely touches on the concept of digital rhetoric. Good luck on the papers ladies! Sorry I missed out on peer reviews today, definitely would have been helpful! and stay healthy!