Analise Critica do Livro The Power of Off de Nancy Colier e o Impacto da Tecnologia

Sample Outline EXEMPLO DE OUTLINE INTRODUCTION Hook or Inciting Idea Digitalcyber world is a frontier Background Context Tech is changing the human condition for better or worse Main Sourceauthor title onesentence summary Nancy Colier The Power of Off Your Best Self in a Virtual World argues for counterpush against influence of tech in our lives Provisional Thesis Coliers piece identifies a real problemoveruse of technologybut her argument is not as rigorous as others in terms of the influence of technology on mental health and the need to mitigate its negative consequences SUMMARY Statement of issueproblem thesismessage reasonsnarrative events Issue Whether we are overloading on technology or not what effect it has on our lives Thesis Technology has taken over our lives and we must control it more Reasons Tech is addictive changing our relationship to selfhood and reality RESPONSE 1First claim critiquing the main source Lack of definitions Textual evidence from the main source terms addiction and technology Textual evidence from one or more research sources Twenge 2017 para 11 specifies social media Bragazzi Del Puente 2014 p 156 distinction between normal and addictive uses of tech missed by Colier 2Second claim critiquing the main source Lack of evidence in Colier to substantiate claim that digital tech is changing our relationship to life Textual evidence from the main source para 6 how we relate to life Textual evidence from research sources DiGiulio 2017 para 11 mediation of screen Twenge para 4 correlation of increased phone to decreased healthy social behaviour 3Third claim critiquing the main source Colier overgeneralizes the negative feedback loop where more dissatisfaction from social media use leads to more engagement with the platforms Textual evidence from the main source para 6 11 Textual evidence from research sources Wincent 2016 confirms addictive habitual behaviour Bragazzi Del Puente p 157 incidence of nomophobia Twenge para 36 on neg impacts but these commentators limit focus to younger generation and provide data CONCLUSION Restatement of the thesis in new words The core of Coliers argument appears to be true but her development of the argument is flawed and not as compelling as it could be New questions What are the implications of arguing an important thesis in a flawed manner How fair is it to hold Colier to a certain level of evidence in an opinion piece If she had qualified her statements would that be enough Concluding statement Without quantifying the magnitude of the problem her assertion that a wholescale reevaluation of our interaction with technology or that we are all addicted to our mobile phones has the ring of the boy who cried wolf sounding the alarm without a strong sense of the underlying threat Full Essay Draft Samples EXEMPLOS DE REDAÇÃO Argument Critique 1 Critique of Why free speech needs a new definition in the age of the internet and Trump tweets By Orna Cunningham Used with Permission Introduction In his January 11 article at TheConversationcom Why free speech needs a new definition in the age of the internet and Trump tweets professor and political scientist Peter Ives discusses the origins and definition of the term freedom of speech and what he argues is the conscious and intentional misusage of that term by the American Right today He examines how free speech as a definable concept must be reexamined in the context of the modern media through which it is commonly disseminated so alien to the media of the time in which the concept arose Ives a professor of political science at the University of Winnipeg writes his argument in the temporal context of this Januarys US Capitol riot in Washington DC orchestrated by former US President Donald Trumps supporters whose use of the Confederate flag signalled a white supremacist insurrection Ives 2021 The riot took place on January 6 of this year following Trumps incendiary speech at his rally earlier that day Ives 2021 and resulted in the loss of multiple lives Ives purpose in writing his article for The Conversation a multinational editorial platform publishing the work of academics on timely topics is to prevent violence and destruction occurring as the direct result of speech that incites violence or causes harm while those speaking claim immunity from consequence under the auspices of free speech I believe his thesis is a simple one and an easy one to agree with ie the definition of free speech is an outmoded one tied to cultural and social norms that no longer exist and its definition must be updated in the Internet age However I think he he is arguing a point of linguistics to avoid a more emphatic question or definitive point that those who incite harm while claiming the protections of free speech must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for the harm they have caused and that the act of knowingly claiming free speech while inciting harm must be punished also or the question of why a fascination with free speech has arisen among the Right Argument summary Ives writes that freedom of speech arose as a concept with the printing press and the reading public and inherently precludes action as opposed to pure rhetoric and thought exercise Ives 2021 Ives notes in his piece that this is how philosophers Immanuel Kant and JS Mill described freedom of speech in the 18 th and 19 th Centuries as freedom of rhetoric in a society otherwise limited in civil liberties and therefore wholly different to modernday America That definition he argues is no longer relevant or meaningful in the context of modern democracies and tools of communication including the internet and social media when speech can incite and in the case of the Capitol riot did incite violence and destruction Critique Ives opens his mostly sound argument with an example that of a Rightwing senator and Yale Law graduate inaccurately threatening first amendmentrelated action against a publisher reneging on a contract He claims that the misuse of free speech by this figure who should arguably have a full understanding of the legal parameters defining free speech and the auspices of the first amendment is evidence of a largescale strategic dangerous redefining of freedom of speech by the right wing Ives 2021 Reading Scott we learn that These days free speech is the mantra of the right its weapon in the new culture war to the right free speech means an entitlement to express ones opinion however unfounded however ungrounded and it extends to every venue every institution Scott 2021 However Ives idea of a Rightist monolithic attitude is overly expansive and the grassroots of a movement is as necessary and inextricable as its elite and thought leaders Ives is an intellectual critiquing a plan unconfirmed by its accused proponents the effects of which can be seen widely in the general populace It can be argued the general populace is not aware of or propagating an intentional overarching culture war but rather espousing ideas normally suppressed by a liberal mainstream media encouraged by a political leader arguably as interested if not more in retaining power by any means as he is in consciously pursuing a Rightwing sociocultural agenda Ives does not consider the average Rightaligned American in this thought The article is wellwritten cogent throughly referenced and logical However this is in part because the thesis is almost too simple to disprove The concept of freedom of speech was introduced at a time when social media and the internet did not exist and that speech was allowed within the constraints of other limited civil liberties Ives refers to economist and philosopher John Stuart Mills writings on the subject in his work On Liberty In our external reading of Van Mill we learn about Mills harm principle the limitation defining the boundaries of free speech Van Mill 2002 Mill states the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others Van Mill 2002 However while a simple and important principle in sentiment Ives does not clarify how we can know or more importantly how a speaker can be shown to have known that speech will have a harmcausing effect If Trump delivered the same speech on January 6 but there were no Capitol riot would Trumps speech be protected under the auspices of free speech And can that intent to harm be fully proved beyond reasonable doubt in all instances where speech leads to violence Some of Ives points stray into generalisation or show Leftist bias without referencing refuting points of view Ives writes Harmful action as opposed to pure rhetoric describes exactly how most media commentators and Democratic politicians understand Trumps incendiary speech at his rally on Jan 6 Ives 2021 Most media commentators is an enormous generalisation and does not consider the many staunchly Rightwing media outlets prominent in the landscape of American political commentary Fox News Digital for example a conservative outlet which had 115million unique viewers overall in 2020 according to Comscore published an opinion piece on January 12 with a headline suggesting free speech is being tested Thomas C 2021 Ives also references Twitter and Facebook in his piece two social media giants who removed Trump from their platforms following his January 6 speech but does not directly clarify that their appending of Trumps tweets or removals of his profiles were not an infringement of his right to free speech as private entities which confuses his overarching point a little His point about the platforms is unclear he says their future will be shaped by congressional legislation and potential regulation To expect them not to have a dog in this fight is unreasonable In the same paragraph he writes that they are private forprofit institutions and must put their own interests first which is a selfevident point and one seemingly not related to the idea of free speech and any role they may have had as arbiters of truth Ives 2021 Where their dog in the fight to redefine free speech is is unclear their dog if anything is in another philosophical fight the direct distillation of content into profit Conclusion Ives article is succinct and coherent but necessarily brief as mandated by the The Conversations stylistic standards for length and tackling as its main point a linguistic argument as opposed to the meat of the deleterious effect of the rebranding of free speech The piece poses a very simple idea that freedom of speech needs to be redefined in a modern context it does not however bring new knowledge to the field of the study of free speech rather it acknowledges the problem of the redefining of free speech but does not interrogate the rise in interest in free speech For contrast Davies writing in the Guardian says The claim that free speech is under attack is often a mask for other political frustrations and fears and later in the same piece adds The panic surrounding free speech appears to satisfy a political need at a time when the identity of conservatism is under siege from a range of demographic and economic threats Davies 2020 Ives concludes that The faith in reason held by Mill and Kant was premised on the printing press free speech should be reexamined in the context of the internet and social media Ironically that suggestion that freedom of speech be redefined is already being satisfied but the problem as the author sees it is that free speech is being redefined by the Right Ives suggestion has merit from an evolutionary linguistic perspective but his thesis suffers from the assumption that the Left would automatically define it in a way more palatable to anyone interested in the concept of free speech and how it applies to them personally Bibliography Davies W 2018 The Free Speech Panic How the Right Concocted a Crisis The Guardian newspaper httpswwwtheguardiancomnews2018jul26thefreespeechpaniccensorshiphowtherightconcoctedacrisis Ives P 2021 Why Free Speech Needs a New Definition in the Age of the Internet and Trump Tweets TheConversationcom httpstheconversationcomwhyfreespeechneedsanewdefinitionintheageoftheinternetandtrumptweets152919 Scott J W 2020 How the Right Weaponized Free Speech The Chronicle of Higher Education The Chronicle of Higher Education wwwchroniclecomarticlehowtherightweaponizedfreespeech Thomas C 2020 Cal Thomas Twitter Facebook ban Trump and free speech is tested again Fox News online httpswwwfoxnewscomopiniontwitterfaceboo kbantrumpfreespeechcalthomas van Mill D 2002 Freedom of Speech The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Spring 2021 Edition Edward N Zalta ed httpsplatostanfordeduarchivesspr2021entriesfreedomspeech