As I mentioned last week I wasn’t too happy that the last of the questions didn’t get answered but we were able to pick that question back up in the beginning of this weeks lecture. Should Network Literacy be focused on in early education? There were a few differing on this. Yes, it can be taught formally, but we’d have to change the whole structure of primary school learning and the way teachers teach. There are some schools that have looked into this already and are doing well in this changed method. The idea that primary school are scared of the mass that is the internet was also bounced around. The last point i wish to mention is the idea that Network teaches its own literacy, so does it need to be taught or is it one of those social laws that will inevitably be learnt, one way or the other.

The questions this week were about the internet, hypertext and consequences of not being network literate. To answer the first question: how is hypertext relevant to us as media practitioners? The immediate response was ‘how is it not’. Less then helpful but also putting forward a strong point. After more discussion it is relevant because it is the way most things, if not all things work within.

What predictions about network should we be aware of in the future? Well, that your weight scales will soon be able to talk to your phone and your fridge will count calories in it through the internet and tell you about it in your microwave. A little extravagant for the next step but it could be happening, you never know.

What are the consequences of being network illiterate? We get used. That is short answer, the example of Facebook came up. The general public use this to put up information about yourself and talk and find new things and we get paid nothing, yet the owners of Facebook are getting money through advertising because we are doing the ground work. Interesting. but really, what would we do without Facebook? . . . well we’d probably find some other way to share what we are eating and what we think of that person in front of you on the train.

This weeks lecture were answering a few questions about the internet. The one that was explored into most detail was: how can we trust the validity of the internet.  In the weeks readings it was suggested that the internet is a lot easier to put up information and a lot easier for a lot more people to get things published. The point was raised that because it is easy for so many people to publish things to the public on the internet how can we trust it as we’ve come to trust books as a source of credible information, books having to go through various critical stages before it is released to the public.

The answer that came from a rather lengthy discussions and anecdotes in the lecture is it all comes down to common sense (much like the discussion in last weeks lecture about ideas surrounding copyright laws and defamation on the internet).

It has become a social norm to be on the internet for us and as such there are certain signs that you look out for, just as you would in real life, in order to judge a situation. Just as you would be sceptical of a man in an unmarked van handing out lollies you would also be sceptical of the odds that you really are the 999,999,999th visitor to that website . . . for the third time, or that you won the Tattslotto . . . in Nigeria. Obviously some things are harder to spot then others but as you live you learn and this is no different.

Common sense people!