Month: February 2022

Wow and Wonder 5

Apologies for a very late post!

My wow and wonder post is based off of Renee DiResta’s article here:

My wow and wonder from this article both stem from DiResta’s term ampliganda. DiResta defines ampliganda as “the shaping of perception through amplification.” This is a unique perspective on propaganda that I had not thought of – it’s still propaganda, but done so by pushing others to spread your message. This is really interesting to me, as when I reflect on this term I can see how widely it is used in the age of social media. However, I never really thought about how it’s a slightly different vehicle for spreading a message than just plain propaganda. Ampliganda also seems extra powerful to me because of the fact that there is no one person or one organization responsible for it. This is also where my wonder comes in, as it got me thinking about how ampliganda may shape and evolve overtime to create other new subcategories of propaganda. Some, perhaps, that may be occurring now, but that we don’t quite yet have a way to describe.

Showcase Post #1

This Showcase Post is based on the very first Wow and Wonder post I wrote, located here. I chose this one because I wanted to do a deeper dive on networked privacy, specifically as it is discussed in Danah Boyd’s article.

While there is a lot that we take from the internet, whether it be stories, research, funny pictures, anecdotes, or facts about our friends and family, I think that sometimes we forget that there is also a lot that we give to the internet. Boyd speaks of using the serviced 23andMe to find out more about her genetic lineage, but makes a key point about the personal and deeply detailed information she has now given to 23andMe. She points out that she “never asked [her] future grandchildren” (Boyd, n.d.) for their consent to their genetic information floating out there in cyberspace, but it is now out there. There are a lot of cool things about myself that I have felt the internet has “given” me knowledge of through personality testing, quizzes, and genetic testing. However, I realized after reading Boyd’s article, that I have failed to consider what I was giving it.

What information of mine is out there that I don’t know, perhaps can’t even fathom, would be knowable to anyone? Is my shoe size out there? The type of car I drive? What about my fears and desires; my relationship dynamics? I have taken the love language test, the Myers Briggs test, the enneagram test. Are these attached to my identity somewhere out there? Or are they truly anonymous quiz results sitting in dark, boring corners of the internet for no one but me to ever know the details of? I have a feeling it’s the former.

In this article by Marissa Lang, she discusses how nothing we choose to share online can ever be fully private. Only 9% of social media users remain fully confident that their personal information is safe and secure online (Lang, 2017). It is comforting to know that others are concerned too. In a way, though, it’s disconcerting at the same time. Nearly everybody is concerned about their privacy online, but not much is being done about it.

How does this relate to privacy that is networked, and not just individual? I believe that the two are deeply intertwined. I would argue that most people do not exist online fully independently. They communicate with others, whether it’s with family and friends on social media or strangers in forums. We are linked to so many people, and this can help create a more realized image of us. If anyone is looking, that is.


Boyd, D. (n.d.). Networked Privacy. Surveillance and Society.

Lang, M. (2017). There is No Such Thing as True Privacy In the Digital Age. San Francisco Chronicle.

Featured image via SecurityToday

Wow and Wonder 3

Wow, this is a week late! I didn’t realize until I came to write my fourth Wow and Wonder post that I completely forgot to do last week’s. My apologies and here it is:

My wow:

Creating a visitor map was hard and forced me to think critically about where and how I exist online. I chose it as my wow because I didn’t think it would be difficult, but it was! Some websites are kind of ambiguous in where they fit, and I did a lot of thinking and pondering.

My wonder:

All of the readings on digital privacy really got me thinking about my place in cyberspace and how much of my information is really out there. I know that I have always agreed to terms and conditions without reading them. I wonder now what more sinister things I have agreed to and how much of my privacy I have given away without knowing.

Wow and Wonder 4

My wow for this week:

The way that Shelley Moore chose to represent true inclusivity was my “wow” for this week. I like that she chose a different pattern for each “person” in the inclusivity diagram, as opposed to only identifying some as different. This concept was also my wonder for the week, because it wowed me as well as made me think.

My wonder for this week:

In Shelley Moore’s story, the comment about the student got me thinking about inclusion and “othering”. Before I read what the student’s issue with the diagram was, I looked at the diagram, and did not see why it was a problematic representation of inclusivity. Then, reading the student’s comment that there should be no “other” at all for true inclusion, I really got it. It got me thinking about what other social issues I may think that I am well-versed in, but am actually misled.