PNWTony

Online Argument: Why the anti-lawn movement bugs me a little Graphic made by me Why did you choose this online argument: I don't use FB, or twitter much so I decided to just find an article that has an argument that interests me. C hose this article because it offers a discussion on the environmental and landscaping debate. It goes beyond a simple pro/con argument , i nstead of taking an extreme stance, the author goes for a middle ground in the lawn-versus-no-lawn discussion. I ’ve been thinking about talking to my family about replacing our lawn at home with native flowers, ornamentals, and fruits or vegetables.   Concerns: Incomplete Cost Analysis:   The author critiques the anti-lawn movement as potentially classist, arguing that only certain people can afford to adopt a no-lawn lifestyle. However, their cost breakdownis weak. For instance, they calculate the cost of replacing a lawn with liriope but only account for the upfront cost of the plants. They completely o...

This week's discussion is about the Toulmin method and how it can be applied in an online communication setting. First, let’s break down what the Toulmin method is. The Toulmin method is a structured way to construct an argument, consisting of six components. The three main components are claims , grounds , and warrants , while the additional three components qualifiers , rebuttals , and backing are optional but can enhance an argument when needed. Graphic made by me using the Purdue Toulmin Argument graphics as guide   Main Components: Claim : The main assertion or conclusion of an argument. Example: A claim could be, "Drinking water is essential for good health." Grounds : The evidence, facts, or data supporting the claim. Example: Evidence for this claim includes that water helps maintain body temperature, removes waste, and supports organ function. Warrant : The reasoning that connects the data to the claim. Example: The warrant here is that the human body relies on...

I'll be honest, I don’t typically listen to podcasts, and finding one about online communication was a bit challenging. While I found some connections to our class discussions, I’m still not entirely sure if I chose the best one. The episode I listened to was "Who Should Control Online Speech?" from the How to Fix the Internet podcast, featuring Daphne Keller from Stanford's Center for Internet and Society. This episode looks into the issues of content moderation, echo chambers, and the concentrated power of big tech companies, offering valuable insights into how online communication is shaped in today's digital landscape.   source: http://www.freepik.com/ In a world increasingly influenced by digital interactions, we get much of our information from platforms like Google, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter). With so many sources fighting for our attention, an important question comes to mind, who decides what information we see online? Keller discusses this ...

The online landscape has reshaped how public opinions are formed, with one of the biggest factors being the fast speed at which information spreads. On social media, anyone can share content that influences others, whether it’s accurate or not. I experience this every day, constantly reminding my dad not to believe everything he sees on Facebook, where misinformation can spread as quickly as the truth. Content that stirs strong emotions tends to spread the fastest, making it particularly impactful. One concerning aspect of how information and content are spread is the formation of echo chambers. People often see content that aligns with their views and are less likely to encounter perspectives that differ from their own. Content and information can significantly alter people’s opinions of others, which is especially important during elections when the general public has to vote for people in power. This communication course happens to be taking place during an election, so you’ll see a...