Danah Boyd was very much correct in her writing. She explained the advancements of early social networks and microblogs into the age of social media. She describes how it influenced the change of programmers, big business, and the common man into a world of friend’s lists and sharing data. She explains that “social media has given rise to new business models and social technologies, as well as become a central part of contemporary life” (Boyd, 2015)
I think Boyd did a rather good job of conveying the message that social media gives users a new valuable way of transmitting data better that anyway before. This gives anyone the opportunity to share ideas and values as well as changing the ways that people communicate with each other. Not only did it change the ways people communicated, it changed the ways programmers communicated and changed the standard at which they wished to achieve. Those who were business oriented had new ways to reach out to people and had to find ways to cater their business to suit social media. Those that were heavily into computers were given new tools for gaining access to other people’s research allowing them to find new ways to further theirs as well as further advance technology.
In my analysis of this article, she did achieve her purpose to the fullest extent. She gave a very descriptive portrayal on the importance of social media. She conveyed the importance initially and in the future. She also conveyed the mindset of those trying to push technology further. I think her work has a purpose. The purpose was to give her viewpoint on the value of social media. I could be somewhat trivial, but it is a part of computing history so pretty valuable nonetheless. I would say that it is well written but lacks supportive evidence. Some sources or figures would have gone a long way to reinforce her viewpoints.
I think the information that she presented was well organized, but it required me to slow down a little bit to decode and translate into something less grammatically challenging for myself. I agree her message. Social media did bring forth change in how business functioned, common people communicated, and how “geeks” would further technology. Much of what she brought forth in this article could be common knowledge, but she accentuated her viewpoint to make it fresh and her article relevant. One part of me thinks that I would enjoy going through the older versions of social media such as BBSes, AOL instant messenger, and Usenet, but then another part of me is questioning the point of going back and checking them out. They made way for what we have today.
In conclusion, I think she did a great job organizing her article and portraying the information in a sophisticated way that challenges readers, gets them thinking, and keeps the reader interested. Her article had quite a bit of information but could have used some supportive evidence to reinforce her viewpoint. Her main idea was rather easily grasped despite her vast vocabulary. All-in-all, I didn’t feel that this article was a waste of time. Well done Danah Boyd.
I agree with you that she did not provide evidence, perhaps she should have thrown in there statistics.
ReplyDeleteI think your response here is spot on, Anthony. The article she is posting to is clearly NOT that rigorous anymore than my article on Twitter and Digital Natives was; we were simply making an argument based on observation, not on further research. There is a place for this sort of discourse, of course, and you made that point quite nicely. Needless to say, if we wished to explore this topic further, a more rigorous, research-based response would be needed.
ReplyDeleteThanks!