Comparing Claypoole's The Real Privacy And Social Media

In a developed society, humans have their own thoughts and opinions on various topics, and they often like to express them. These discussions can range from supernatural phenomenon and their meaning to something as trivial as what to eat that evening. What other humans create is often up for parley, as well. For example, the proper use of technology is an ongoing debate ranging in details- what to post, privacy settings on social media, time spent using technology, the future of technology, what have you. To push their own arguments out into the published world, authors often use a formula to make their points seem stronger and to convince their readers that their beliefs are the correct ones to choose. However, this does not always mean a

This is achieved through definition, which every author that will be mentioned has used for their writings. While Claypoole’s “Privacy and Social Media” (Jan. 2014) and Morozov’s “The Real Privacy Problem” (Oct. 2013) have similar thoughts that social media abuses the privacy of its users, they define it differently and see different solutions. Claypoole aims to pass more legislation to help protect the people who partake in social media platforms, while Morozov implies that this was a matter for civic standards to take care of, nothing more. Based off these suggested policies, one can infer how the authors define these issues and how strongly they see the qualities of the problem. Both Claypoole and Morozov agree that privacy abuse is no laughing matter, but Claypoole seems much calmer and collected in his writing compared to Morozov. They illustrate the negative qualities of these matters, but Morozov writes at greater length to do so, while Claypoole is precise in his writing. Not only that, but Claypoole is more concrete with his use of conjecture- Morozov is not, and seems to use a legitimate discourse and take it a step further to appear more insightful. Claypoole is clear and concise in his article, using all four stasis appeals to create a strong argument, while Morozov drones on and vaguely

1998) take a more general, psychological approach to the possible consequences of misusing technology. Defining the problem differently than Morozov and Claypoole, these two authors suggest that technology, more importantly, affects the psychology of humans. By sharing this definition, the authors also share the same quality. Buchholz and Benson both can agree that these modern gadgets aren’t benefitting the populace that uses them, but for different reasons. Benson is concerned about the dying art of philosophy and deeper thinking within the population, whilst Buchholz is more worried about mental health and the health of relationships due to lack of “being truly alone”. Their mediocre arguments of conjecture is just enough to provide a solid foundation for their points to be built upon. However, Benson and Buchholz have almost an identical policy- to have readers put down their cellular devices, think, and let themselves be