Corporations have built a hall of one-way mirrors: from the inside, you can see only apps, web pages, ads, and yourself reflected by social media. But in the shadows behind the glass, trackers quietly take notes on nearly everything you do. These trackers are not omniscient, but they are widespread and indiscriminate. The data they collect and derive is not perfect, but it is nevertheless extremely sensitive.
A data-snorting company can just make low bids to ensure it never wins while pocketing your data for nothing. This is a flaw in the implied deal where you trade data for benefits.
You can limit what you give away by blocking tracking cookies. Unfortunately, you can still be tracked by other techniques. These include web beacons, browser fingerprinting and behavioural data such as mouse movements, pauses and clicks, or sweeps and taps.
Tor, the original anti-surveillance browser, is based on an old, heavily modified version of Firefox.
Most other browsers are now, like Chrome, based on Google’s open source Chromium. Once enough web developers started coding for Chrome instead of for open standards, it became arduous and expensive to sustain alternative browser engines. Chromium-based browsers now include Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, the Epic Privacy Browser and next year’s new Microsoft Edge.
Cases of burnout have been increasing at an alarming rate in recent years among millennials and Gen Zers. It’s a growing problem in today’s workplace because of trends like rising workloads, limited staff and resources and long hours.
a recent study by Mind Share Partners, Qualtrics and SAP reveals that half of millennials and 75% of Gen Zers have left a job for mental health reasons.
Another recent study, by the American Psychological Association, found the percentage of young adults experiencing certain types of mental health disorders has increased significantly in the past decade. In particular, the percentage of people dealing with suicidal thoughts increased 47 percent from 2008 to 2017.
Jean Twenge, author of iGen, a book about the effect technology has on this generation, says that “the rise of the smartphone and social media have at least something to do with it.”
But Peter Gray, a research professor at Boston College, said that it’s not social media or young people’s fractured attention spans that are causing their anxiety; it is school itself.
“It’s no secret that students today face the ultimate paradox—the same tools they need to use to complete their work can also provide their biggest distractions from completing work.” How can we help them manage this struggle? https://t.co/xmaOzXpvfU
According to the Pew Research Center, 72 percent of teenagers check their phones as soon as they get up (and so do 58 percent of their parents), and 45 percent of teenagers feel as though they are online on a nearly constant basis. Interestingly, and importantly, over half of U.S. teenagers feel as though they spend too much time on their cell phones.
Research on intrinsic motivation focuses on the importance of autonomy, competency and relatedness in classroom and school culture.
According to one Common Sense Media report, called Social Media, Social Life, 57 percent of students believe social media use often distracts them when they should be doing homework. In some ways, the first wave of digital citizenship education faltered by blocking distractions from school networks and telling students what to do, rather than effectively encouraging them to develop their own intrinsic motivation around making better choices online and in real life.
Research also suggests that setting high expectations and standards for students can act as a catalyst for improving student motivation, and that a sense of belonging and connectedness in school leads to improved academic self-efficacy and more positive learning experiences.
Educators and teachers who step back and come from a place of curiosity, compassion and empathy (rather than fear, anger and frustration) are better poised to deal with issues related to technology and wellness.
“Social media had changed not just the message, but the dynamics of conflict. How information was being accessed, manipulated, and spread had taken on new power. Who was involved in the fight, where they were located, and even how they achieved victory had been twisted and transformed. Indeed, if what was online could swing the course of a battle — or eliminate the need for battle entirely — what, exactly, could be considered ‘war’ at all?“
Even American gang members are entering the fray as super-empowered individuals, leveraging social media to instigate killing s via “Facebook drilling” in Chicago or “wallbanging” in Los Angeles.
An analysis shows that information flow between individuals in a social network can be ‘gerrymandered’ to skew perceptions of how others in the community will vote — which can alter the outcomes of elections.
The Internet has erased geographical barriers and allowed people across the globe to interact in real time around their common interests. But social media is starting to compete with, or even replace, nationally visible conversations in print and on broadcast media with ad libitum, personalized discourse on virtual social networks3. Instead of broadening their spheres of association, people gravitate towards interactions with ideologically aligned content and similarly minded individuals.
n information gerrymandering, the way in which voters are concentrated into districts is not what matters; rather, it is the way in which the connections between them are arranged (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, like geographical gerrymandering, information gerrymandering threatens ideas about proportional representation in a democracy.
Figure 1 | Social-network structure affects voters’ perceptions. In these social networks, ten individuals favour orange and eight favour blue. Each individual has four reciprocal social connections. a, In this random network, eight individuals correctly infer from their contacts’ preferences that orange is more popular, eight infer a draw and only two incorrectly infer that blue is more popular. b, When individuals largely interact with like-minded individuals, filter bubbles arise in which all individuals believe that their party is the most popular. Voting gridlock is more likely in such situations, because no one recognizes a need to compromise. c, Stewart et al.1 describe ‘information gerrymandering’, in which the network structure skews voters’ perceptions about others’ preferences. Here, two-thirds of voters mistakenly infer that blue is more popular. This is because blue proponents strategically influence a small number of orange-preferring individuals, whereas orange proponents squander their influence on like-minded individuals who have exclusively orane-preferring contacts, or on blue-preferring individuals who have enough blue-preferring contacts to remain unswayed.
While some say the term is a combination of “fan” and “stalker,” “stan” was first coined in 2000 when Eminem dropped a twisted allegory in a song called “Stan,” about a man who was pushed to the edge when his idol wouldn’t answer his fan mail.
The most avid fan bases often have their own labels. Lady Gaga has her Little Monsters. Justin Bieber fans are Beliebers. Nicki Minaj has the Barbz. Beyonce has the BeyHive. And, if motivated enough, stans that congregate on social media actually can change the trajectory of their artist’s path — and the life of anyone who stands in the way.
Fifty-nine percent of American teens have been bullied or harassed online, according to a 2018 survey by the Pew Research Center. Instagram is one of the most popular social media networks among teenagers and a likely place for teens to be bullied.
In a recent study, conducted by the investment bank Piper Jaffray, Instagram is the second most popular social media platform among teenagers. Thirty-five percent of teens surveyed said that Instagram is their favorite social media platform, compared with 41% who preferred Snapchat.
finding appropriate sources,
peer-reviewed versus non-vetted sources
Google vs. Google Scholar vs. SCSU online dbases vs Academia.edu and ResearchGate.com
Digg http://digg.com/, Reddit https://www.reddit.com/ , Quora https://www.quora.com/, Wikipedia
Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) or Gen Z (born after 1996)
Today’s youth culture lives in apps—not for the sake of the technology itself, but for the rich social, psychological identity-driven mash-up that define a person, group, interactions and opinions.
When a Millennial or Gen Z-er accesses a new consumer app, it is as simple as opening the morning newspaper is for their parents or grandparents. However, when the same people look at a college schedule, fill out paperwork or an online form, access or save records that they may need later, and, eventually, try to conjure it all at the end of this process, they are stopped in their tracks.
Building a Brand, User Testing Apps, Social Media Marketing
By contrast, when brands and memes compete on social media, young people pay attention.
Without those social signals as well as continual feedback from their friends and influencers— what the younger generations rely on for context—they are likely on very different wavelengths from the colleges who want them to attend and stay, training and outreach opportunities vying for their attention, and employers who need reliable entry hires.
Each generational shift suffers a cultural communication schism, noticeable at home and in school, that in the past was navigable by the time young people focused on college or career training, or entered the workforce. Today, this is not happening.
The gap between the traditional practices and the social and consumer app world is serious. Simply creating app-like technology to mimic older processes is not the answer.
Equity is more than creating more organizational programs or developing more ineffective websites without adequate measures for engaging and empowering young people who need support.
Even American gang members are entering the fray as 
