Online platforms have undeniably become the order of today’s interactions. As such, we are faced with the task of being deeply literate in order to comprehend the constantly changing internet environments. Authored by Navneet Alang, the article titled “ Online Freedom Will Depend On Deeper Forms of Web Literacy ” was published in 2012. Based out of Toronto, Alang is a contributing writer whose vast experience in the field has seen his works appear in reputable platforms such as The Atlantic, New Republic, Globe and Mail, and Hazlitt (Shanan, 2017). Often his work is based on digital technology and its cultural effects. Alang, has however been involved in other topics such as immigration, race, and identity. In this article, Alang reveals his perception of changes and updates that have been made to his favorite website, Google Reader. He points out that regardless of how big or small the changes are, a user who is familiar with programming is capable of controlling the web. Furthermore, there is software in the web that can be used to make desired changes. From his reflections about the students who tried to create an application that would replace Facebook, Alang reveals just how difficult it is to bring innovations to the internet. Alang, through attention grabbing, is effective in arguing that the capacity to control one’s own experiences in online platforms is dependent on their literacy in languages of digital technology. However, the lack of positive opinions about web sites updates and an exaggerated thesis makes the article less appealing.
Attention Grabbing
The beginning of the article as well as the transitioning paragraphs grab the attention of the audience. Alang begins the article with, “Google ruined my life” (2012). His sentiment is true because for a moment, the audience can relate to the significant damage that internet has done. For example, one would at first relate the damage to addiction to social media among other negativities associated with the internet. Alang further explains that, his perception of ruin could be exaggerated because it was a mere change on Google Reader. At this point he takes the audience through an explanation of how important Google Reader was to him because it enabled him read various articles at one point. Being a contributing writer, the audience can now relate why Google literary ruined his life. Obviously, because he was used to the organization and free services of the app. With the new Google+, Alang was stuck. As such if he only had the knowledge, then he would have been able to navigate the new platform. He reveals that those who were technically-savvy than he was were able to use codes to restore the original Google Reader.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Exaggerated Comparisons
At the beginning of the article, the author mentions of slight exaggeration, which he extends to his article. The first paragraph of the article states, “So when Google swooped in and changed things, I felt as if someone had rearranged all my furniture like some undergraduate prank” (Alang, 2012) Such a comparison does not really make the reader get in touch with the web. The author should have stuck to a thesis that compares with issues on the web. As such the exaggeration is magnified beyond the limits of the truth. Research reveals that people who are consistent on social media are so used to the extent that slight changes would bring confusion. Alang should have made comparison of Google Reader with compatible online platforms. This would have made more sense in arguing web literacy other than mere furniture.
Lack of Positive Opinions about Website Updates.
Other than being an argumentative essay, Alang is persuading the audience because he never mentions anything positive about the website updates. In his article, Alang reveals the extent to which people have become attached to the internet, to the extent they slight changes on the websites they are so used could have a huge impact on their lives as well as make them feel uncomfortable. His persuasion does not have a glimpse of positivity as to why the changes are being made. For instance, on the issue of Google Reader, the developers could not have logically dwelled there in order to make people such as Alang comfortable. As such Alang could have made his argument effective by acknowledging the positivity of upgrades. For instance, when he demeans people for being aware of mere working of social media platforms other than the coding of those websites, Alang loses touch with the positive. Furthermore, even in this digital age not everyone is capable of updating their Facebook status (Mahony et al, 2017). The article does not appreciate the growth in knowledge of use of social media. The lack of positive opinions about website updates makes the article less effective in the argument.
Conclusion
While the article grabs the attention of the reader effectively at the beginning, Alang’s work is not without flaws. The lack of positive opinions about the updates of the websites, which is essential for technological advancement makes the argument a persuading one other than argumentative. Also, Alang fails to make logical comparisons while stating his thesis. He dwells on the damage from a furniture perspective instead of maintaining the technological tone. Based on Alang’s article, however, we were able to determine that to counter online challenges in the modern times, one has to be digitally educated on a deeper level. Although the argument is valid, the manner in which it is represented makes it have serious implications.
References
Alang, N. (2012). Online freedom will depend on deeper forms of web literacy. Retrieved 4 April 2020, from https://this.org/2012/02/13/online-freedom-will-depend-on-deeper-forms-of-web-literacy/
Mahony, S., Spiliopoulou, A., Routsis, V., & Kamposiori, C. (2017). Cultural institutions in the digital age: British Museum’s use of Facebook Insights. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies , 11 (1), 286-303.
Shanahan, M. K. (2017). Journalism, online comments, and the future of public discourse . Routledge.
