Reading Response 2: Rheingold

Stop Thinking. Stop Pondering. Stop Strategizing. Stop Debating. Start Doing.

Cameron Brown

Ms. Rose

English 1102

28 March 2018

Annotation Link:

Whether it be in a book, described in ink or whether it be on a website, typed on a page, literacy has many ways of expressing itself. The main way people use it is to gather and give information from sources. From the usage of books, we were able to read an informational book and be able to trust the information within to be credible. “You might disagree with a library book, but you could be somewhat confident that someone checked the author’s claims about facts before the book was published.” (Rheingold, Net Smart pg 77) Using this evidence from Rheingold’s Net Smart, Crap detection 101 chapter, it is inevitable that surfing the web, trying to find valuable information will cause you to stumble across something that is “totally bogus.” It is up to you being able to use your crap detection skills, being able to look up the author and read between the lines to see that some information you read online is truly fake and untrue.

Similar to Rheingold’s words, A blog post from the works of a professor by the name of Chris Gillard, a literacy teacher working at Macomb Community College, shows that deadlining serves as a common ground between that and crap detection. I understand this to be similar to each other by standing by the fact that digital redlining and crap detection are both routes of engaging into the world of gathering information through technology. “Digital redlining arises out of policies that regulate and track students engagement with information technology.” (Digital redlining-access privacy) While majority of Chris’s writing is defined as a multiple sets of education policies and may refer to many explicit topics such as revenge porn or gender and race boundaries, these definitions of privacy and redlining (not to be confused with digital divide) is something is relative to the topic of informational subjects mostly revolving around students. Why there are many problems that may be included within the topic of digital technologies, the main focus is the amount of access that we may or may not have to “worldwide” subjects. In the reading, Chris describes Nina, being interested on the topic of Revenge porn and making quick search only to fail and realize that she is being isolated from information that may prove fruitful to her research, therefore being digitally redlined, according to Gilliard.

While both of Rheingold’s writing and Chris’s writing share some common traits, the subjects that these writers have are both different in their own fashion due to their primary courses of ideology. However, this may raise the question, how can digital redlining and crap detection be related in such a way that they can enter the same reading together simultaneously without clashing with one another’s ideas? It is clear that they do not directly express themselves to be precisely the same nevertheless they do overlook on the topic of where and how we are getting our sources nowadays. This can almost unswervingly be proved¬†considering the fact that in one of the annotations that I have made prior has defined this subject to be directed towards the after-effects of you searching up something that may be erecting invisible walls in order to cloud the connection between the digital world and issues.

Work Cited:¬†Chris Gilliard and Hugh Culik “Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy” last mod. 2016

Rheingold “Net Smart – Crap Detection” Last mod. 2012