1. Rosen's overall argument is that in today's world networks have given people the ability to share with millions who they are as a person and how they want people to portray them.
2.The audience of this article would be anyone who is caught up with the digital technologies. I know this by the examples she refers to like WELL, Friendster, and Orkut she just expects you to know what she is referring to. She does explain WELL a little more in detail but if the viewer is not technologically up to date they would still be clueless on the matter.
3.Rosen is credible because it is her own opinion. She doesn’t particularly state facts she is more or less stating the obvious truth you could find out yourself.
4. Rosen is very biased but not in a way that would push a different opinionated viewer away. She is biased in the fact that she believes technology has changed the way people present themselves. For instance she says, "today, in the world of online social networks,
the oracle’s advice might be show thyself." She is biased in the belief that networking has changed the human species.
5. I love the way she rights this, pulling in history into the new technological generations comparing and contrasting the different aspects of how people share themselves online; this makes her seem more credible. I completely agree with his article I also believe that networking has changed people, not for the better or the worse, just changed in general. The way people write, talk, and present themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment