| Add the literature citation here   | Ito et al. (2010). Media Ecologies. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out. MIT Press.
 | Describe the main ideas from the reading
 
 -choose 4 main ideas -use bullet points to explain each idea and provide a quote that illustrates each point 
 
(16 points - 2 points per idea, 
2 points per quote with pages)  | 1.     It is inevitable that our youth today are exposed to a culture based on computers and internet. Even if this may not be present at home, it is all around the world. “Even youth who do not possess computers and Internet access in the home are participants in a shared culture where new social media, digital media distribution, and digital media production are commonplace among their peers and in their everyday school contexts” (pg. 30).  2.     Through media and technology, peers can be connected through several modes of communication and can basically talk to each other whenever they want. This in turn creates a culture in which teens will find consolidation with each other through multiple forms. “Contemporary teens generally see their peers at school as their primary reference point for socializing and identity construction” (pg. 38).  3.     The culture of YouTube is so prevalent in our society today. It is no surprise that our culture is beginning to shift from the television to the computer and phone through the rising popularity and usage of YouTube. Video downloads and sites such as YouTube mean that youth can view media at times and in locations that are convenient and social, provided they have access to high-speed Internet. (pg. 46) 4.     In terms of messing around, teens have a vast array of different things they can search and do on the internet. However, in order for it to be called “messing around” a structured form of media usage should not be present. Instead, on their own volition, students have the free will of doing whatever on the internet. While this can be beneficial to the growth of students, some fear the openness the internet provides. Just as in the case of hanging out, messing around is a genre of participation that is driven by young people’s own interests and motivations (pg. 62).    
|  Did the author(s) make any arguments that pushed you to expand thinking about your students and their lives with technology?  If so, please provide examples.   (2 points)   | I always thought of the term “messing around” as a waste of time. However, the author here argues that messing around is a form of learning in which students can “launch a variety of self-directed activities”. This can be beneficial to student autonomy and self-worth as they begin and complete online activities, achievements, games businesses, etc. on their own.
|  Did the author(s) make any arguments in which you disagree?  If so, please provide examples.   (2 points)    | I am wondering what the argument is against “messing around”? While I agree that messing around can be beneficial, I wonder what slightly monitored messing around looks like and the pros and cons of it versus just messing around.

 

 

 

2.  Digital spaces are not acultural. Culture is expressed and developed in digital spaces. “Black and Latino youth carve out their own spaces for identity and community in the digital spaces that are transforming culture and everyday life” (p. 21).

3.   “In a 2018 study, Vicky Rideout and S. Craig Watkins found that black and Latino youth are actually more likely than their white counterparts to use social media, for example, as a resource for civic expression and participation” (p. 24). I wonder if this has to do with the rise of Black Live Matter movement. I also wonder if this is because poorer groups have little option but to be involved politically in order to defend their families and communities.

4.  Lower income students find creative ways to access the Internet if they don't have it at home.

There was nothing in this reading that I disagreed with.

 

     I disagree with Boyd’s statement that social media has not changed the fundamental nature of youth friendship practices.  Perhaps I need to understand what Boyd’s criteria for a fundamental nature is, yet it seems that even in 2010 when this article was written and Myspace was still being used, there was a fundamental difference in the way the youth were engaging with one another on social media.  While there are similarities in these friendship practices, it seems that the new implicit rules, the increase in information transferred, the presence of algorithms deciding what you and your friends possibly interact with together, and the quantifying of friendship merits drastically change the fundamental nature of friendship practices on social media. Perhaps Boyd has changed her mind since 2010 when these changes weren’t as drastic and obvious.