Thesis: A previous argument made, stated that the overuse of cell phones, social media and technology in general can show many negative effects in society such as increased anti-social behavior, social anxiety, and an overall distance between real life connections with the people around us and this shows that we as a society have regressed in our face-to-face social skills and is constantly deteriorating as our society becomes more technology-dependant. But, if it has these negative effects on society as a whole, how does it affect a single human being in an individual matter? Research has shown that the increased use of technology in a person’s everyday life can also have negative effects on their mental and physical health throughout their lifespans.
What I am trying to do is convey the point that in addition to my previous research topic that technology hinders true face to face social interactions with one another, it can actually bring upon negative mental and physical health issues along with it. I was still investigating good facts to back up this claim and research studies one by many universities and news articles are the real pieces of evidence that helped me to drive my points further and further and be able to elaborate more on them. I still have questions on how serious are all these effects on the general public or do they only occur in certain people and what are better ways that I can revise a thesis to correlate better with strong main points and help to provide great detail to said points?
My multimodal research essay had to deal with the negative mental and physical effects that came with the overuse of technology, and surprisingly, there are quite many of health risks. I want to use the multimodal aspect of my research to expand upon it in a way that no words could actually bring towards the research essay. To sum up my research essay, I had discovered that overuse of technology such as looking into an electronic screen for too long can actually give you digital eye strain, which is a temporary discomfort in your eye, but can at times, be very deadly to your sight. Studies have also shown that a prolonged exposure to Wi- Fi radiation can actually damage and slow down the flow of sperm cells in a male. To expand on the mental health effects people that spend too much time on social media can actually feel more lonely and depressed and also when people with a heavy use of technology and suddenly have it removed, they can go through withdrawl symptoms similar to those of drug addicts. With these negative effects being brought upon in an individual it is no wonder why society as a whole is being more negatively affected by the overuse and misuse of technology as well. This video further explains on how it even hinders teen education and I completely agree with this since it lines up with alot of the research I have done as well.
I do agree with the fact that people don't fully read and understand the Terms of Service agreements on websites and I for one, personally, am guilty of this. I do realize that it is such an important thing to go through and read and analyze especially when it can deal with so much of my personal and sensitive information and that said website or corporation can do so much with it, that I would be completely unaware of. If a school such as Georgia State University, or any educational facility has a program like Desire to Learn, they should base their terms of service around their student's utmost benefit as a moral obligation to them. I do feel any school should do that, but with this being a university, a university is always business as well and I doubt that they would make a system in which doesn't make as much profit as they can off of the students. I do believe that there should be laws in place that limit educational institutions from acquiring certain types of information from their students that are too personal. I understand that many of this information gathered is used for is demographics and research purposes but even then, that can be too personal. Laws should be enacted on companies that deal with students and just people in general. Some information from people can be too vital and confidential and corporations shouldn't be able to do with it as they please, especially when it is common knowledge that people do not go through the terms of service.
I do believe we shouldn't be judged from what we post online as though that can be a means of personal expression but the Government should have some sort of involvement in monitoring what is being posted online due to the dangers of threats and terrorist acts being enacted upon. Many people say that there should be no monitoring on the internet when people post, but that would make sense if everyone on the internet didn't say questionable and possibly threatening things on the Internet. Contrary to popular belief, I do stand by this belief that the government should continue to monitor the usage of the internet. Technology can protect personal autonomy to a certain extent when it can be used to reflect a personal situation or any particular type of positive topic. The topic of autonomy being protected by technology can provide an answer that can go both ways. Autonomy can be protected but can it actually thrive without an external government guiding it? The fact of self expression and self governing should be protected and respected but the reality is, not everyone can maintain this right as their actions can be judged as questionable at the least, so this raises the question not if they should be protected, but can autonomy protect itself. In terms of regular human life, away from technology, I feel as though we are autonomous at certain times because we always are in control of our thoughts and actions so we do have self control over that body, but there are also times where we are also not truly always autonomous because we all still follow the rules of society and the government that have been laid out for us. We still adhere to basic social norm, so in some senses we are not autonomous, so therefore the answer to that question is completely dependent on the context in which it is being asked. Limitations on autonomy can be a good thing, it allows people to be able to be maintained and keep them from acting out on a whim, there is a certain social standard that people would have to measure up to to allow them to be accepted as proper members of society, such as not committing crimes or harassing people. Certain limitations like the law, can be good for society as a whole so people don't take the wrong actions into their own hands and create their own certain twisted way of justice or doing everything as they please and it allows for there to be a sense of order and prosperity in our environment. So to sum up, autonomy can be a good and bad thing and it should be protected but to a certain extent and depends on the context of what autonomy is leading towards.
"I have read and agree to the Terms of Service," is in fact the biggest lie on the internet. The terms and conditions of many online websites, applications, school sites and other things have always been overlooked by many, let alone skimmed through. People unknowingly can be agreeing to give away all of their information that they post without even knowing because of how tedious it can be to read and understand the extensive terms of conditions of many sites. The simplification for quick understanding of terms and conditions could greatly help those who would be unaware of what they are signing. Personally i have only read through maybe a third of a Terms and Conditions from anything in my life simply because i knew what i wanted to do within the app but found it too tedious and time consuming to actually read the whole thing.
In the crowdsourced project TOS;DR, i found it very interesting what the terms of service were for major websites and how they could keep and use your personal browsing info for multiple purposes. After going over multiple reviews of websites like youtube, Facebook, twitpic, and Skype it makes me think twie about joining sites like that simply because you ultimately have no control over anything. For example the three companies i just stated have the ability to change their terms whenever they want without notification which is very troubling. Also when you delete things you may not be able to see them but the company running the site will still and always have information or evidence of what you deleted, which i believe is not very good. Some applications such as Skype will not allow you to delete your account after it has been created. It will always be there in some way.
Things like that make me feel that it would be a good choice to allow the user to interact and negotiate with the terms and conditions of using a site or app, ESPECIALLY if changes are being made. I would not appreciate it if i was using a educational technology such as D2L/Brightspace and long after I'm finish using it an outside party would be able to view my browsing. I strongly believe that there should be laws to set limits on what terms of service all web apps providers can require. The most important thing is that users of these apps need to pay closer attention and educate their selves on the terms of service of the web apps they are using. Paying attention to fine print is the way to go after researching this topic.
Plagiarism is defined by Wikipedia as the “wrongful appropriation” and “stealing and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions.” I personally feel that it is wrong to take the work of someone else and credit it as your own. In a academic setting though, i feel that even though it is still wrong the disciplinary actions are a bit extreme in most cases. Most universities would possibly kick a student out of school if found guilty of plagiarism on just one assignment. Instead of punishing a student and stopping their road to higher learning completely i believe just a failing grade on the assignment would be enough. There are multiple angles and steps that should be taken when it comes to plagiarism that could be more helpful.
A meeting of the student and instructor could be held to solve further plagiarism. "Why did the student plagiarize?" should be a goto question. It could indeed the fact that the lesson or assignment that is being given by the instructor not meaningful or too generic for the student? Is there something going on in the students personal life that could be effecting the amount of energy they can put into the work. If these are some of the things that could be in play the instructor has a duty which is to help the students learn the best way possible. The instructor could try a different way of gibing a lesson plan or try helping the student out with their schedule to insure that the work can be done in an organized manner without plagiarism. It is not only the students responsibility to do their work and not plagiarize but also the instructor responsibility to give the most memorable and effective way of learning for students.