My essay was sturctured to be easy to read. As I was writing it I made sure it was visually appealing and simple to understand. A lot of this was through proper blocking of the essay. In my essay one major point was to make sure that none of the paragraphs were too long. When they were they looked like walls of text.
The paragraphs that were too long also teded to try to cover too many topics. By paying attention to length it also helped my make sure that paragraphs stayed on topic. Otherwise there wasn't much multimedia in the research essay but there was some in the proposal. That took the form of imagery of data. It showed a chart to justify one of the claims I made. This chart helped to allow people to see and derive the information that I had. It also worked as evidence that didn't need to be explained. It allowed readers to experience the research that I did as well so they could see where I was developing my opinions from.
Imagery has not affected my writing that much but the spacing of paragraphs has. Making sure they don't drone on has been a big consideration for me when writing.
Copyright in the U.S. Has existed since the first American constitution. It has shifted away from building the public domain and has instead become about building the private wallet. People forget about why we have copyright from an artistic point and they just worry about profit margins. With the addition of technology and YouTube we have seen this manifest in video game commentary a hugely popular field. We need to find a median which all parties can agree to so that we may move forward as a society.
There has been a lot of debate surrounding this topic. Youtube has their own policies for fair use, but they are not consistent between companies. They allow the copyright owners to decide what fair use is. Why do we allow companies to control what we define as legal and illegal? If we were to have a consistent medium how would we agree on what fair use should be? These are the major questions that I ahve not found concrete justification or evidence ragarding, and have left me pondering.
We have all seen them. Terms of service agreements that are thousands of words long. We skip over them and never concern ourselves with what we may be agreeing too. Should these be shorter for the consumer? Yes. But is that the fault of the companies I think not. Which also leads to education and TOS. Students should be better informed on what they agree too in terms of service, and the terms must be limited by an outside mediator.
We hate reading Terms of sevice. We skip to the bottom to just find the check box. However, do we ever consider if the companies enjoy writing them. We assume that companies that write these massive texts enjoy hiring people to lay out all of this legal process. We don't consider that this is an extra expense that they dislike doing as much if not more than we dislike reading them. They have to do it though in the stat of our country. We have an amazingly large amount of lawsuits in this country. The companies have to write these lists of agreements so that they don't get sued into oblivion. They write them because they have to. If we want the agreements to be shorter we have to give the companies some inherent protections legally so they don't have to spell them out for themselves.
This transfers to education as well. If there are going to be terms of serivce in educational software they need to be clear and concise. They also need to be legally limited so that they don't become abusive toward the people using he data. They should not be able to sell or otherwise trade the data. They also should not be able to rope people int agreements that could not be understood in plain text.
Overall the terms of service should be simplified but it is up to the government and us as a people to fix that. We need to not scare companies into writing these massive lists for us to agree to so that it is easier for us to understand what we are agreeing to.
Plagiriam is something that has only become simpler as access to technology has spread. The rampant use I'm academia stems from a separate issue however. The main villain here is the environment of the student in our current system.
The current definition for plagiarism is not flawed at its core. There is however some leeway with plagiarism that should be added. In the same way that you can copy a video as long as you don't redistribute to gain wealth, you should be able to copy a text to do the same thing. If you quoting from a source doeang harm the sales then there is no reason that quoting them would be harmful.
Attribution has always been a key in plagiarism since its inception. We were told that we could quite as long as we cited the source. I agree with this. The citations allow a reader to go see a work for themselves if a quote intrigues them. The cites don't necessarily have to be as standardized as we have them now but they are important to have the paper not hinder sales.
Finally why did I say the environment was theissue? Let me pose the question, why do students cheat? They Have to get a good grade to keep scholarships and apply to good schools and even get the approval of their peers or parents. This system encourages students who can't do to cheat. There is little incentive to do actual work when the final product will still get a bad grade. This basis of the system is the root of all cheating and I'm turn plagirism.
Technology acts a an enabler and a harm to autonomy. It is also not the only source of this issue. Google tracks your search history to aim advertisements at you to best get your money. On the flip side blog sites like reddit or imgur allow you to post your opinions anonymously to allow you not to worry about the opinions of others. Which brings me to the other culprit society's norms.
Technology definitely harms our autonomy at some points. Websites like Facebook and Google track your usage data. This allows them to pick and choose advertisements in order to increase the likelihood that you buy the advertised product. Cameras have also been placed everywhere and allowed government agencies to watch everything we do. Only recently in Atlanta street cameras at red lights were taken down due to the infringement on personal privacy.
Technology can aid our autonomy however. The internet acts as a wonderful anonymous medium. Blog sites allow users to post content without having to attach their name to their opinions. Reddit enforces a rule that its users aren't allowed to display information that would reveal who they are. Whether or not this anonymity is a good thing in a General sense is uo to debate, but it definitely protects privacy. Technology also allows people with disenting opinions to voice them more than ever. In just 2011 the government added a portion of their website which allows people to submit e petitions to their lawmakers. This makes it much easier to voice discontent with the current system.
Finally technology isn't the only culprit in the case of autonomy removal. Society is one of the main contributors. Social media sites have been said to harm autonomy for individuals. It is said that people in certain businesses need to watch what they say for fear of being fired from their job. This isn't a product of the technology but rather a product of society. If society didn't asociate the opinions of someone with their personal worth then the things posted on social media wouldn't be a problem. There would be no need to censor yourself without the opinions of others.
At the end of the day your autonomy is yours to decide what to do with. It can be increased or decreased depending on how you use technology. It is a decision that you have to make as an individual and not something that is made for you.