Reading Response 2/23

After reading Boyd’s article, “It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens,” I think the most important claim she is making is that the youth being able to navigate and work well with technology is not the issue. Rather, the issue that Boyd is trying to express is that the youth aren’t being educated enough to understand the media or internet. Boyd is arguing that the youth’s “media literacy” should be the main concern when it comes to teens and digital technologies (Boyd, 181).

Having grown up with technology myself, I can say that like others I am very proficient in the digital world. However, understanding what I was reading or creating was not clear until I learned more about it in college. I think this is the point that Boyd is trying to make about educating teens rather than limiting their time online. Nonetheless, there is a lot we can all learn about the digital world according to Boyd. Some of what he mentions is becoming more aware of algorithms, advertising tactics, trustworthiness, etc. I agree with Boyd’s claims and insist that media literacy is crucial with the way technologies are heading.

Furthermore, Boyd’s main claim on the “rhetoric of digital natives” is strong. As said above, Boyd believes that the youth are indeed able to navigate well throughout the digital world, but are they educated enough to understand what they are navigating through? Boyd goes on to put the blame on the educators, adults, and parents of the youth for thinking that they are knowledgable in everything online. This is not the case. The article mentions that being media literate is not just something the “digital natives” must possess, but also “digital immigrants.” For example, Boyd provides a list of tasks and day to day functions that require one to be knowledgable in the digital world. Many elders have the wrong interpretation of these ideas (178-181).

Lastly, Boyd insists that there must be a change in the thought process of digital natives. In my own life, it has become apparent that elders expect us to be literate in all forms of media even though they have not taught us to do so. Boyd presses this idea when she writes:

“In other words, a focus on today’s youth as digital natives presumes that all we as a society need to do is be patient and wait for a generation of these digital wunderkinds to grow up”

(Boyd 197).

Ultimately, Boyd is trying to argue that we must not rely completely on these “digital natives” when we have not taught them the proper ways to decipher between technology and information online. She insists we create a new digital literacy (198).

In addition to Boyd’s claims, the article by Mike Caulfield titled, “Yes. Digital Literacy. But Which One,” highlights the confusion people have with being literate in the digital world and just being able to navigate through the digital world. Caulfield insists that people need to become more educated when surfing the web. Boyd and Caulfield had many similar viewpoints and hope for a world where people start to ask questions on the material they are reading. Caulfield explains that there is a lot online that we often have no idea about. The way we coin the term “digital literacy” is wrong and we need to create our own, new form of digital literacy. People must educate themselves more, take more classes, ask questions, and surf the web in a new way. Caulfield ultimately wants the youth and people in general to understand more.