This article written by Laura Gurak begins to describe cyberliteracy and its impact. New technologies are shaping how individuals experience and view the world around them, so it is important that individuals are aware of changes in technology. Cyberliteracy goes a step further, entailing that it is necessary to be able to critique these changes in technology when they become a danger to the lives of individuals and their privacy. Technology can be a powerful tool when used correctly with correct motives, but when these are not in place, it also can lead to many issues. Modern technology will never go away; in fact, it will continue to evolve both naturally and at the hands of capitalists, so it is the duty of the public to become cyberliterate in order to protect the rest of society from any negative effects.

        Gurak’s article describes the dichotomy of the internet and its many resources; on one hand, the internet is useful to spread information, research quickly, and increase communication across great distances. However, there is also a dangerous side of the internet that makes money at the expense of users, breaks privacy, encourages capitalistic endeavors, and creates unhealthy work expectations of always being within reach of communication. One draw with technology is that if an individual is not buying a product, then they are the product to these internet and technology companies. There are many ethical debates with this, as many believe that humans should not be viewed as products to be bought and sold, to be thrown in the wind by any company looking to earn some money. It is essential to remain cyberliterate to stand firm in individualism and against capitalism.

As described in this article, digital citizenship is how to navigate digital environments safely. Just like being a citizen of a physical government, there are rules and behavioral expectations for users of digital spaces. There are nine core elements of digital citizenship—that fit into three categories—to help users responsibly use the internet.  The first category is respect for self and others, which encompasses the elements of law (copyright and fair use), access (for all), and digital etiquette (netiquette, conduct, and responsibility). The next category is educating self and others; this includes digital literacy (critical thinking and validity of content), communication (organization and correct use), and commerce (purchase and finance). The last category is protecting self and others which includes security (precautions and safety), rights and responsibilities (reporting), and health and wellness (balance and cyberbullying). These nine elements serve as a guide on how to explain digital citizenship to others.

         In this article, it described how students have gone through their entire education with technology at their side—growing comfortable using it—and that sometimes educators assume that students are fully proficient digitally due to their ease and skill. However, it makes an interesting point that skill and comfort do not translate to appropriate use; students still need to be taught how to be digital citizens. After reading this, I wonder how this can be taught clearly to students, who may assume that they are fully proficient and do not need to know how to be safe digital citizens. Digital spaces can be dangerous places, so it is important that these ideas are taught regardless.

This text spoke about the advantages and disadvantages to online dating, which was originally created by people who were exploiting the need for human connection. The main advantages to online dating are the efficiency and convenience, and the exposure and network aspect of it. First, people are busy and dating apps are portable. Next, they are intuitive and easy to set up. In regard to the exposure and networking aspects, the dating apps function as geo social network apps, pairing people with those in their own community; furthermore, there is an algorithm that pairs like-minded people together. The last advantage is the increase sense of control over the entire dating process. While there are many advantages, the disadvantages are also numerous. First, there is a large amount of lies and deceit through the form of catfishing; since there are no pre-existing social ties, it is easy for individuals to like and conceal their true identity on dating apps. Next, mental health struggles might increase do the stress, and there also could be an increase in sexual violence due to meeting up with complete strangers in person after speaking with them over a dating app. There are a few strategies to help protect individuals  including, providing limited personal info, blocking inappropriate accounts, and meeting in a public place for the first meeting.

         The most interesting point in the article was that 80% of people lie on their online dating profile, yet still so many people continue to use dating apps, despite the risks. When a tool is unsafe to continue using, usually it is discontinued and put out of commission. But if anything, online dating seems to be getting more popular—despite being rooted in deception—because of the ease. It is almost as if people are putting their convenience above their safety, their pride of being in a relationship over their ability to stay unharmed.

This article describes the mindsets within the “Big Data economy” and how companies and organizations use algorithms and mathematics in their daily functions. Specifically, it spoke of how these technologies are used to “save time,” increase output, and be more “fair and objective” in contrast to a tradition human resources or human affairs department. However, the article describes how it is in fact these models themselves that have human bias and prejudices incorporated into the very fabrics of their programing. The author describes these as Weapons of Math Destruction—WMD—and takes a close look at a teacher assessment tool called IMPACT. In trying to fairly evaluate teachers without bias or prejudice, these programs mainly analyzed student scores in math or reading, instead of taking references into account. The article goes on to state that WMDs tend to justify their results—instead of accurately analyzing the situation—and tend to unjustly punish poor people.

        One particular quote stood out to me: “human victims of WMDs…are held to a far higher standard of evidence than the algorithms themselves.” This is due in part to WMDs having an inherent feedback loop due to their structure. Traditionally, programs receive feedback from participants or employees if there are any discrepancies in decisions; however, decisions made by WMDs are completely accepted without critique. Employers have complete trust in WMDs and the fact that they have no faults; this causes unfairly discriminated employees to not have any advocacy in this process and thus, they are held to a higher standard of perfection than the faulty algorithms.