React with a Sledgehammer or the Kid might Win

I must first say thank you to the "Henry Jenkins Interview" piece for mentioning something that bothers me every time. It seems to be the consequence of fear that those who feel they are losing their control tend to react with a hammer rather than a needle. If something seems threatening, it is irradicated rather than dealt with. Myspace and Facebook aren't evil things intended to destroy youth today. While I agree that some degree of regulation when it comes to predators would be prudent, I also agree with the fact that the social network is an environment that can be beneficial to the development of teen identities. Even if it weren't, fighting against it in this day and age is swimming against the tide. Understanding seems to be the best way of adapting to this change and it would do everyone some good, all generations that is, to begin the learning process so these inernet sites don't seem so threatening. That being said, the "Testing Horace Mann" piece was distressing in itself. The idea of the effect of class on the teenager has been previously discussed and my attention was immediately drawn to the fact that these teens that were being so malicious are privileged kids. It was truly unnecessary for them to behave the way they did, and I think that is why their actions seemed so shocking. It's extreme behavior like that that causes the public to react so strongly and to actually fear digital mediums. No jokes this time around. Learning these mediums and understanding their cultural impacts is truly the best method for stopping things such as the "Testing of Horace Mann" and internet predations.

Teenagers and their Articles

Yes, that title is a pun and it's there for a reason. It seems to be the norm to have articles about teenagers be of a materialistic nature. Does it matter (or, for that matter, do i care?) how many text messages teens these days are using? Apparently it's a topic of such interest people need to take the time to research, write, and publish pieces on it. According to one article, teens don't feel like they need a landline in their current or future homes, preferring instead to just use their cell phones. Does that fact matter? No. Is it even mildly interesting? I again say no. But what else can they write about teens? A gander at recent teen articles would show nothing good. Another is devoted to how our generation, today's teens, are absorbing less information, thus seeming dumber, than the teens of previous generations. While one writer made a point of saying that it's unfair to judge the intelligence of the masses off the basis of memorization, this returns me to the idea of Digitive Natives being taught by Digital Immigrants and how learning styles haven't adapted to the times. My final printed article was on teen marijuana use and how it's declined, but I still wonder why they couldn't find anything better to write about. I can't help feeling that teens are represented in articles as being obsessed with Sex, Drugs, and Possessions.