Response: Solutions to Cyber-Bullying

It's obvious that cyber bullying has become a huge problem in today's society.  Definite action needs to be taken, but the obvious question is what?  Punishing the bullies makes sense but hasn't been effective in containing the problem, sheltering kids from being online and keeping them blind from the problem won't be effective in the long term, and those are really the only two actions that have taken place to solve the problem.  There has to be another idea out there, something that will be effective in containing and eventually resolving this issue.

The main response, which has not really been effective, is to punish the bullies.  But it's been shown that these bullies possess some sort of mental issue and that is why punishment will not stop them from bullying. A better option would be to use counseling and testing to figure out what is causing this person to bully and try to address the situation accordingly.  I feel like you would have a better chance of preventing future bullying issues with psychology instead of punishment.

Another proposed solution has been to keep teenagers off the internet completely.  This responsibility would obviously lie with the parent or guardian of the teenager.  While doing this may prevent issues in the short term, it doesn't provide much protection for the teenager once they become old enough to think and act or themselves and/or rebel against their parent or guardian.  Blinding the kids from reality is definitely not the best move.

In my opinion, the best course of action is one that has already started, and that is to simply raise awareness of the issue and what is does both physically and psychologically to the victims.  More stories like Amanda Todd's will unfortunately still have to be told but it's definitely a start.  This combined with psychological inquiries about the bullies I think make a great combination to what will hopefully be the eventual resolution of this issue.

Response to Social Media Bill of Rights

Reading Lori Andrews' argument in favor of a "social media bill of rights" is a very interesting, thought provoking read.  The thought that employees would not be able to access any social networking page that you may have is something that's never really crossed my mind before.  I've always just assumed employer checks of social media pages was the status quo and something everyone should take into consideration when looking for a job.

I think it's interesting that this is being considered in other countries, specifically Germany.  I think that if this passes in Germany other countries will start to follow suit.  In this case I believe it would be inevitable that the United States would pass a similar law.  As always, there would be a huge public conversation in the media, people would speak out both for and against it.  It would give the news networks material to work with for a while.

While I don't think employers getting access to a potential employee's social media page is a horrible thing, Andrews' proposal is extremely thought provoking.  If an employer wasn't able to see your online profile and just judged you based on your application and interview, you may be more or less likely to get the job than if the employer was able to see the profile.  Andrews' argument that it's unfair for a job to deny you based on what they see in your social media is something I've never really considered.

With that being said, I'm still in favor of employers being able to look at a potential employee's social media.  With the security features that Facebook and Twitter have in terms of who gets to see your profile you should be able to make your profile "passable".  Also, if you're looking for a job you should definitely be responsible enough to limit the amount of incriminating pictures and posts on your social media.  This, to me, is the same as staying away from marijuana if you're looking for a job.  You should be just as aware of the fact that you'll be drug tested as the fact that your social media pages will be looked at.

Are we Addicted to Google?

The question of how much power Google has in our lives has been raised a lot recently.  It's true, we Google everything from how to spell a word to how to make the best Chili.  But does this constant Googling and Youtube video watching and Reddit reading actually mean we are addicted to these mediums?

To answer this questions, let's start with a comparison with someone who is addicted to smoking.  They try to quit, they know they should, but the nicotine craving is just too much.  If the person addicted to smoking does successfully quit, they go through a miserable "detox" period in which they're cravings are at an all time high but are never satisfied.

Would the same go for someone who tried to quit using Google, Youtube, Facebook, or another online medium?  Personally, I gave up Facebook for lent one year and had no problem not checking it.  It was actually a little liberating.  But, of course, as soon as Easter was over I was back to checking Facebook on a daily basis.  But I feel like that's because there's nothing like Facebook anywhere else.

Google, to me, is different.  Anything you can do or find on Google, you can do or find somewhere else on the internet.  Google is just more convenient because it's a "one stop shop" so to speak.  But you can look up a word's spelling and meaning in an online dictionary or find out a recipe in an online cookbook.  You don't NEED Google to do those things.

But if you asked someone to use an ACTUAL dictionary or an ACTUAL cookbook I don't think they could do it.  So in conclusion, I don't think we are addicted to Google, but I definitely think we're completely addicted and dependent on the internet as a whole.

Response to Trine-Maria Kristensen Interview

The world of blogging is definitely a different type of universe than anything that came before it.  I liked what Kristensen said about having to "break the code" to get into the universe.  In order to blog well, you have to read other blogs.  Even for this class right now, we're responding to something we read.  The more you read, the better your blog will be.

I also enjoyed Kristensen's response about the design being an important part of your blog.  I run the blog for the campus radio station, WONC.  When I started the blog, one of the biggest decisions to make was what the layout would be.  Your blog's layout and design has to match it's content otherwise there's an imbalance.

I can definitely relate to Kristensen's response about how much traffic she gets.  WONC's blog does a weekly "Battle of the Week" between two songs.  Fan votes decide which song stays in the battle for next week.  Sometimes there will be upwards of 30,000 votes in one battle, those days garner the most traffic for the website.

I can also relate to Kristen's decision to use WordPress for her blog.  It's what I use for WONC's blog and it's so detailed yet really easy to use.  It makes your blog resemble an actual website, which is a nice feature.  WordPress also makes it easy to embed photos and videos to your posts, which is extremely convenient for a radio station to use.

Kristensen's constant reference to how she writes based on her interests are the backbone of what blogging is all about.  A blog can not and will not be successful unless you write about what you enjoy, and in turn you will enjoy writing about it.  Odds are if you enjoy a topic you will be knowledgeable on it, which will make you and your blog more credible.

I liked what Kristensen said about the parody of how long it takes her to write some articles.  It truly is all about flow, but other times longer articles need some time to construct themselves.  If you have an article that requires a specific tone or that needs to invoke a particular emotion, it may take you longer to decide on how exactly to write that piece to help your article portray the correct message.