THE RIGHT ANGLE: Senioritis setting in - Opinions
Back near the beginning of last semester, I wrote acolumn about how badly I had senioritis. But now that I'm less than two months away from graduation, I realize that I could never have known how bad it would eventually get.
Senioritis, for those of you who are completely lost, is that state of mind that sets in the closer you get to graduation that causes you to just stop caring. It's that mindset of, "Ahh, who cares, I only have two months left anyway." There are varying levels of senioritis, and it can set in at different times. In fact, I'm fairly certain my roommate is starting to get it, and she's only a junior.
Senioritis takes away any motivation to do schoolwork, and we all know most college students don't have enough motivation to spare. It turns that late-night study session with your classmates into gossip hour, and even though you know you should be spending your time trying to find a good job for after graduation, you're much more concerned with finding an affordable beach house for after graduation.
Yes, I've fallen victim to every single one of these characteristics. But there's more at work here than just the promise of graduation and freedom. Senioritis weakens the system and leaves students more susceptible to Internet Axis of Evil: MySpace, Facebook, and blogs.
Now I have a MySpace page, but I basically stopped using it after I realized just how many insane people there were on that site. Facebook, well, I've decided that Facebook eats time, and literally. I mean, one minute I'm looking at a friend's photo album, and the next thing I know, it's five hours later, and I've gone through my entire friends list and coded how I knew everyone.
Yes, I think we can all agree that Facebook is evil, but a necessary one. After all, if I wasn't able to communicate with classmates through Facebook, I might be forced to use a phone or some other ancient form of communication. And where else can you befriend George W. Bush, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Jesus Christ all at the same time?
Of course, I know I might spend too much time on Facebook, but it's nothing compared to the amount of time I spend reading and posting on blogs. I've had a blog of sorts ever since sophomore year when I started my Livejournal so I could have a place to rant about the exceedingly liberal writings of the Carolinian.
But my blogmania didn't really start until recently, when I switched my blog over to Blogspot. Blogspot, it turns out, is releasing my inner nerd. Not only am I posting and responding more frequently, I'm finally teaching myself basic HTML. Yeah, I know it's sad, and I've had people offer to help me, but I find teaching myself is so much more rewarding.
Aside from just being so much nicer than Livejournal, you can find a blog for pretty much every active UNCG student on Blogspot, or so it seems. And because you can give access to several posters all on one blog, it's perfect for student organizations, such as the College Republicans (uncgcr.blogspot.com) and the College Democrats (uncgcollegedems.org).
Okay, so yes it can be argued that the Internet is leading to the downfall of society, what with the fact that we can communicate with millions of people thousands of miles away and never have to leave our desk, all while completely losing the art of real conversation. At this point, I'm far too addicted to live without it. Also, my senioritis is telling me that I don't care.
Eh, I only have a little over a month left anyway...
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The Conundrum of the Internet: The Framers of the Constitution REALLY Should Have Thought About Blogs...
THE RIGHT ANGLE: The conundrum of the Internet - Opinions
I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.
But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?
The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.
Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.
I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.
In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.
It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.
I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.
But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?
The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.
Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.
I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.
In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.
It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
