The alarming cybercrimes and insecurity

The alarming cybercrimes and insecurity

The alarming cybercrimes and insecurity on internet users pose a significant challenge to the “digital natives.” The primary victims of such disjunctions insecurity are social media users. In the short story, Navneet Alang depicts online freedom to have been captivated by the web company. He coined his proposition to the social media users who enjoy minimal or no privacy at all when one access their Facebook accounts. Throughout the narration, the contribution seems to be sincerer. Still, on critical analysis, he uses both pathos, logos, and ethos to convince his audience on the impossibility of rewriting the codes. However, there are various factors that he failed to consider in coming up with an alternative social media that can guarantee users a high level of privacy. Some of these factors include moving beyond coding, integrating web literacy in schools, and cultivating digital citizenship. Through persuasion, he imparts the idea that creating online freedom depends entirely on the web literacy of the user. “If you aren’t literate in the languages of digital technology, your capacity to control your own experience is constrained.” Therefore, I disagree with the idea that online freedoms depend on web literacy because web literacy can be taught as a discipline in schools to enable everyone to tap into the full power of the internet.

From the text, Navneet appeals to pathos by using a paradox to persuade his audience. Being brought up in the digital world does not guarantee people a high level of web literacy. People have to be educated to gain knowledge of how the webpage code languages. The category of people who are quick to learn is the youths in the society. However, not all teens have the ability to access the technology that impacts the functionality of the webpage. For instance, the statistic reveals that about 69% of UK teenagers cannot distinguish between search results and google ads. They require just a little support to show their ability in coding to participate in designing the webpage. From the text, the narrator employed the use of paradox to express his concern about integrating web literacy. He asserts that “lets you pop open the hood of your web browser and mess around.” The writer used a unique paradox in the sense that the browser user has no control over how it works. However, this is appealing to the logo by using a paradox in persuading the audience. From one perspective point of view, the limited browsers enjoy many freedoms which many users could have been experiencing. On a different perspective, the web page was left free for public access until the web literacy came in. The browser was then commercialized, and the few individuals invented a centralized tool to control the page. However, the non-programmers left in the hand of the privileged ones who took the initiative to monitor users’ freedom. It, therefore, created the hierarchy of nonprogrammers remaining as the subjects while few programmers stay in power, enjoying full freedom. Online privileges were thus decentralized among the few.

To get a sense of what it takes to build an alternative webpage, Navneet appeals to ethos by coining his narration by using allusion. He alludes to the diaspora story of four New Yorkers studying in the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences who wanted to build an alternative Facebook. They intended to provide a web browser that is faster, convenient, and could guarantee online freedom. However, their program lacks enough financial support, and the team withdrew from their program. A year later, one of the team members succumb though it cannot be judge base on their prior plan. However, Navneet used his first-person narration to depict the challenges associated with attempting to create an alternative Facebook browser. It is, therefore, a call for the global community to integrate web literacy among youths. From the text, Navneet alludes to the freedom of the press to express how a fraction of the browser users enjoy online freedom. He asserts that “as “freedom of the press” was only ever valid for those who owned one, protecting our freedoms online is going to require millions of more people to understand better just how it works.” This point can be understood in the sense that some few people came into the public domain and change what belongs to the public for their favor. A large number of users are not subjected to the slavery of the information they ought to have control of. The information which all people accessed freely is now turned to multibillion dollars, which then enjoyed by a few computer geeks.

Integrating web literacy among people can enable both programmers and nonprogrammers to enjoy online freedom. Some of the parameters to employ include supporting educators and encouraging youths to participate in redesigning the page. Web literacy relies on three basic elements, which include reading coded information, writing, and involvement in online participation. However, when these key points are not well looked into, the entire society may end up being locked in the old programs. The best sources for rewriting this coded information are the youths who still have the potential to express their ability. However, their potential relies on the information by the instructors. From the text, Navneet admits his several attempts to change the Facebook webpage to something that can guarantee the security of his data. He, therefore, use pathos by appeals to authority to persuade his audience of the incredibility of rewriting the web page. In the text, Navneet asserts that “many of us—even those like me who care about this stuff—find ourselves powerless.” The solution to form a Facebook website which guarantees the users total privacy, therefore, relies on integrating the basics of web literacy like reading, writing, and participation.

In the last three paragraphs, Navneet Alang used to appeal to logos in expressing his message on the timeline of the trial. By using facts, definition, and definition factual to express his idea of time that had span in the epoch of trying to change the already lost online freedoms to few programmers who can rewrite the web codes. For instance, in the third line paragraph, he gives the timeline of the continuous struggle from the 1920s to the 2000s. He again used metonyms to assert his intention on time. The writer refers to one of the four young boys who had failed in providing an alternative to Facebook as may have committed suicide to overcome the failure. In the text, he asserts that “… in late 2011 one of the four founders, 22-year-old Ilya Zhitomirskiy, was found dead, apparently after committing suicide.” However, he gives us the tragic accident that occurred to one of the uncertain stories of Diaspora but failed to provide us with the information of the remaining three members. A question, therefore, rings into the readers’ mind as to where are the rest of the group and could their initial ideas contributed to the least expected. From this reasoning, he leaves the audience in a red herring state by lack of proof in finding an alternative Facebook. Besides, he also gives the exact figure that the fundraising team obtains to support the formation of an alternative social media. He says that “the team was thrown into a harsh spotlight, especially after a fundraising campaign suddenly netted them $200,000.” However, this seemed to have been a very small figure to venture into a project that will overwrite billions of web users. People cannot thoroughly understand the perception of the disappointment that the four young boys went through. However, it is the team that knows what it takes to create an alternative social media web browser.

Having online freedom to the users relies on moving beyond coding the programming languages. Navneet, for instance, uses hyperboles to shows the incredibility he encountered in his attempt to rewrite the codes in social media. However, rewriting programmed writing is similar to hacking the web license. One may not rewrite a program when he is logged to that website. Most programmers encrypt their programs with security codes that make it essential for only authorized persons to access the content.

Furthermore, he does not understand that the webpage has been commercialized and hence require high-tech security. The author says that “Google has ruined my life,” which is not logical on critical analysis. Furthermore, the program was more open to all users before the system was upgraded. The use of similes is also ubiquitous throughout the novel. For instance, Navneet says that “I felt as if someone had rearranged all my furniture…” to asserts the idea of insecurity triggered by the new advancement. However, he appeals to pathos by exaggerating the extreme changes done on the web browser.

The narrator used pathos to pursued his audience using hyperboles. The narrator employs the use of hyperboles to retract the attention of his audience. Hyperboles sprawl out the intention of the narrator to his subjects faster. In his case, Navneet mentions “light-blue page” to refer to a wide range of webpages that requires corroboration of peoples’ mind for an amicable solution. However, he may not have literary refers to the color of the web page but a collection of internet portfolios. It can, therefore, be seen in the sense of unifying different programming languages to have a complex one that can design a Facebook web browser. The main idea that can help to bridge the gap is by embracing the digital native. Closer research in the US reveals that a few supports are ideal in understanding the content of the website and customizing the information. Therefore, having web literacy is a bit complicated thing for many users who have limited information on how the internet operates. What hinders most of the web users from enjoying their online freedom is the lack of attempt to participate in online programs. Some sites like “Navigate” provide vital basics through hyperlinks that make it easy to secure your information. Currently, Mozilla, in conjunction with leaders from STEM and other tech institutes are working to restore user privacy.

Towards the end of the text, Navneet Alang appeals to ethos by motivating the work of programmers. He used irony to express his gratitude on the most straightforward interface created that can enable nonprogrammers to enjoy online freedom. Throughout the novel, Navneet has been castigating a few programmers who captivated users’ privacy on online items. However, he starts appreciating the medium created like ifttt.com that can perform tasks that are implemented by java HTML. He asserts that ifttt.com enables browser users to enjoy varieties of used webs to suits individuals’ needs. The idea of the intermediate alternative can, therefore, be viewed in the sense of commerce. Initially, web users enjoyed the freedom of accessing online products free of charge. However, when a few technocrats redesigned the web, online freedom was commercialized. Otherwise, one can access networks but without web privacy. Things, therefore, changed from free to pay at the mercy of a few who have the power to rewrite the codes. Navneet thus contradicts his original stand of online freedom to depend on web literacy. Furthermore, non-programmers and programmers enjoy equal services from the web page without necessarily studying the programming languages. The interface is encrypted with codes that can rewrite the coded information of the page. Therefore, an individual doesn’t need to learn web literacy to enjoy online freedom.

Conclusion

Access to the internet demands a lot of privacy for web users. To enjoy online privacy, one first needs to understand the basics, such as writing, reading, and participating in web designing. From the text, Navneet depicts online freedom to be dependent purely on web literacy. However, web literacy is so complex that only a few computer geeks find the privilege to enjoy. By critically analyzing the propositions of the author, alternatives to bridge the gap between the programmers and nonprogrammers prevails. The other options include moving beyond coding, integrating web literacy, and cultivating digital citizenship. Hence Navneet Alang used persuasion by pathos, ethos, and logos in the context of timeline, audience, and motivation. Therefore, online freedom does not necessarily depend on web literacy but the basic ideas on how the internetwork.