Platforms

This week we talk about various platforms. Many of these platforms share different rhetorical insight and interfaces that may be often pushed to the background if not otherwise pulled to the surface. In this week’s readings there were many familiar platforms that were analyzed. For example, YouTube’s “circulation gatekeepers”(p. 62) in Edward’s reading. These entities control the content that moves throughout the platform and therefore controls what user can and cannot interact with. In the many strict ways YouTube operates, it often becomes difficult for writers to navigate without accidently suspending their content or tripping up the algorithm to work against them. Moving on to Faris and his surveying of the app Grindr, he argues that Grindr has been monetized by advertisements and specific discourse to target the “ideal gay” (p. 6). This then challenges the ethical standard and inclusivity of Grindr. In another reading Vie argues that in many instances colleges need to reassess their reasons behind using plagiarism detection tools such as “Turnitin” (p. 4), as it often loses its effectiveness. The arguments made by Arola is that social media has had much more of an impact and influence on user. She then specifies 3 impacts that have “writing related themes” (p.1). In the Medina & Pimentel reading, there is a discussion on how people of color fall into a digital divide that will inherently place them in a racist position. 

 

The authors of these works have taken on the task of pulling apart and taking a deeper look on what platforms can do for the user. While I found them all just as intriguing, I thought it was important for me to look at the Edwards reading a little closer. While YouTube is a very familiar platform, I have fallen into this accidental space where my video is taken down due to copyright infringement when no other music or video was playing in the background.  Although my videos being taken down did not disrupt my life in any way, the same cannot be said for those that are creating videos for content purposes. Content providers often suffer at the hands of algorithm procedure that often become fed up with their accidental copyright issues. I cannot imagine someone editing diligently on a video for hours on end for a non-existent copyright issue to completely trash their hard work. But because YouTube has become this powerhouse of a platform, it would be impossible to move onto another streaming/ content service that offers diversity in video topics, with the same following that YouTube already has thanks to their famous influencers.

 

Topics on pedagogy always peak my interest, so I happen to also find Vie’s writing just as familiar as the YouTube reading. While I think it might be important to use plagiarism detection services like “Turnitin,” I am not sure what type of rhetorical message colleges are sending to the students when doing so. The purpose of “Turnitin” is to catch students plagiarizing; However, if the tool is used when a student is not plagiarizing, then doesn’t that send the message that the school is and always will be suspicious of plagiarism, even when plagiarism is not detected? Vie takes on this idea, and instead attempts to change the focus to revising papers rather than using this tool. This tool may sound tempting to institutions while we’re all online, but the idea still stands. However, I remember feeling uneasy when I turned in my papers as an undergrad (e.g. “did I cite correctly?” “is there an obscure rule I broke?”). Not because I did anything wrong, but the feeling of guilt and paranoia becomes incredibly welcoming when I checked the box to use the tool. This then made me think about student who have trouble paraphrasing, what happens then? Will they be reprimanded for accidently plagiarizing? The idea that educators and institutions would rely on “Turnitin,” for something that is often met with disciplinary actions seems dated and non-inclusive, and really should be refrained from being used at all.

 

 

I think I asked some questions above, but here are some more:

What do you think are the advantages of a curated algorithm made just for you? What are the disadvantages? Does anyone ever feel like this becomes an invasion of privacy?