RWS 280 SDSU Black Mirror Rhetorical Strategies and Appeals Paper Hello,Please write an essay about two article, 5 pages, the prompt and one of the article

RWS 280 SDSU Black Mirror Rhetorical Strategies and Appeals Paper Hello,Please write an essay about two article, 5 pages, the prompt and one of the articles are provided below. 1/17/2020
I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.
OPINION This piece expresses the views of its author(s), separate from those of this publication.
I invested early in Google and Facebook.
Now they terrify me.
Roger McNamee Opinion contributor
Published 3:15 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2017
Updated 7:22 p.m. ET Aug. 10, 2017
I invested in Google and Facebook years before their first revenue and profited enormously. I was an early
adviser to Facebook’s team, but I am terrified by the damage being done by these Internet monopolies.
Technology has transformed our lives in countless ways, mostly for the better. Thanks to the now
ubiquitous smartphone, tech touches us from the moment we wake up until we go to sleep. While the
convenience of smartphones has many benefits, the unintended consequences of well-intentioned
product choices have become a menace to public health and to democracy.
Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining
and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook,
Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for
new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to
generate profits for their owners.
More: Legal automation spells relief for lower-income Americans, hard times for lawyers
More: Please do not let your employer microchip you
The people at Facebook and Google believe that giving consumers more of what they want and like is
worthy of praise, not criticism. What they fail to recognize is that their products are not making
consumers happier or more successful. Like gambling, nicotine, alcohol or heroin, Facebook and Google
— most importantly through its YouTube subsidiary — produce short-term happiness with serious
negative consequences in the long term. Users fail to recognize the warning signs of addiction until it is
too late. There are only 24 hours in a day, and technology companies are making a play for all them. The
CEO of Netflix recently noted that his company’s primary competitor is sleep.
How does this work? A 2013 study found that average consumers check their smartphones 150 times
a day. And that number has probably grown. People spend 50 minutes a day on Facebook. Other social
apps such as Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter combine to take up still more time. Those companies
maintain a profile on every user, which grows every time you like, share, search, shop or post a photo.
Google also is analyzing credit card records of millions of people.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/08/my-google-and-facebook-investments-made-fortune-but-now-they-menace/543755001/
1/2
1/17/2020
I invested early in Google and Facebook. Now they terrify me.
As a result, the big Internet companies know more about you than you know about yourself, which gives
them huge power to influence you, to persuade you to do things that serve their economic interests.
Facebook, Google and others compete for each consumer’s attention, reinforcing biases and reducing the
diversity of ideas to which each is exposed. The degree of harm grows over time.
Consider a recent story from Australia, where someone at Facebook told advertisers that they had the
ability to target teens who were sad or depressed, which made them more susceptible to advertising. In
the United States, Facebook once demonstrated its ability to make users happier or sadder by
manipulating their news feed. While it did not turn either capability into a product, the fact remains that
Facebook influences the emotional state of users every moment of every day. Former Google design
ethicist Tristan Harris calls this “brain hacking.”
More: We need answers in Democrats’ congressional IT drama
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
The fault here is not with search and social networking, per se. Those services have enormous value. The
fault lies with advertising business models that drive companies to maximize attention at all costs, leading
to ever more aggressive brain hacking.
The Facebook application has 2 billion active users around the world. Google’s YouTube has 1.5 billion.
These numbers are comparable to Christianity and Islam, respectively, giving Facebook and Google
influence greater than most First World countries. They are too big and too global to be held accountable.
Other attention-based apps — including Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, SnapChat and Twitter — also
have user bases between 100 million and 1.3 billion. Not all their users have had their brains hacked, but
all are on that path. And there are no watchdogs.
Anyone who wants to pay for access to addicted users can work with Facebook and YouTube. Lots of bad
people have done it. One firm was caught using Facebook tools to spy on law abiding citizens. A federal
agency confronted Facebook about the use of its tools by financial firms to discriminate based on race in
the housing market. America’s intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in our
election and that Facebook was a key platform for spreading misinformation. For the price of a few fighter
aircraft, Russia won an information war against us.
Incentives being what they are, we cannot expect Internet monopolies to police themselves. There is little
government regulation and no appetite to change that. If we want to stop brain hacking, consumers will
have to force changes at Facebook and Google.
Roger McNamee is the managing director and a co-founder of Elevation Partners, and investment
partnership focused on media/entertainment content and consumer technology.
You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front
page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a
comment to letters@usatoday.com.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/08/my-google-and-facebook-investments-made-fortune-but-now-they-menace/543755001/
2/2
RWS 280
Spring 2020
P​ROJECT​ T​HREE​: A​NALYZING​ A​CROSS​ G​ENRES
C​ONTEXT​:
Over the past few weeks of the semester, we’ve been working with
“academic texts” to identify arguments, claims, evidence, strategies,
& rhetorical appeals. In general, these texts share many of the same
features, including making explicit arguments, creating practical
solutions, using language that is accessible for the target audience, and using frequent appeals to ethos, pathos,
and logos.
What happens, however, when we try to analyze a genre that is not considered an “academic text?” Do any of the
conventions change? Are any of the conventions similar?
A​SSIGNMENT​:
For this assignment, you are being asked to analyze ​two genres: ​(1)​ ​an academic text and (2) a television show.
Ultimately, you will need to ​synthesize​ both genres and analyze the effectiveness of both arguments.
You will use the following material for your analysis:
1.
2.
Roger McNamee’s “I Invested Early in Google and Facebook. Now They Terrify Me” (2017)
Black Mirror, s​ eason 3, episode 1, “Nosedive” (2016) located on Netflix
a. As an alternative for those who do not have access to Netflix, you can watch “Generation Like”
by PBS (2014) located on YouTube
G​OALS​:






Read​: McNamee’s article, taking note of his ​argument​, ​rhetorical strategies​, and ​rhetorical appeals
Watch​: “Nosedive” or “Generation Like,” taking of their ​argument​, ​rhetorical strategies​, and ​rhetorical
appeals
Begin finding areas where the television show and written text ​agree​, ​disagree​, or use ​similar/different
rhetorical strategies and appeals
You will need to identify ​four ​ways they are similar or different (can be 3 similar, 1 different; 2 similar, 2
different, etc.)
Put the two media “in conversation” by ​synthesizing​ and ​analyzing​ the effectiveness of their choices
Develop an essay between 4-5 pages long
R​EQUIREMENTS​:
€ 4-5 pages in length
€ MLA 8 Format
€ MLA 8 Works Cited Page
€ Direct quotes make sure you introduce, integrate, and analyze. Don’t simply “drop in” quotes.
€ Because you are asked to write an analysis of an argument, you are required to evaluate whether or not
McNamee’s and Black Mirror’s (or “Generation Like”) argument was effective or ineffective. Focus on
walking your reader through the choices they make and ​why t​ hey make them in order to make their
argument.
RWS 280
Spring 2020
€ Intro​: strong hook, background context, introduce both article & secondary media, road map of your
analysis, thesis
€ Body:​ identify one of the rhetorical moves that McNamee uses that either is similar or different than
secondary media; analyze how the strategy contributes to both of their arguments; analyze ​how a​ nd ​why
the strategy may have impacted both the written & visual argument; analyze and evaluate the
effectiveness of the rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos, and/or kairos)
o Repeat as necessary
€ Conclusion:​ So what? Bigger picture? Why should we care? Was the article or show more successful or
persuasive? What should she add to be more persuasive? Is social media taking over our lives? Are we too
focused on making people like us on social media that we’re losing sight of what really matters?
E​VALUATION​ C​RITERIA​:
→ Comprehension
o Effectively addresses all aspects of the prompt
o Fully grasps McNamee’s article & selected television program and showcases knowledge
cogently
→ Development
o Details/analyzes article thoroughly and thoughtfully
o Writer thoroughly addresses elements of the argument, including author, context, purpose, and
evidence.
o Writer successfully identifies both rhetorical strategies and rhetorical appeals in academic text &
media
→ Organization
o Essay flows logically from introduction → body → conclusion
o Sentence level organization is strong
→ Expression/Mechanics/Grammar
▪ Writer uses appropriate syntax, grammar, punctuation
I​MPORTANT​ D​ATES​:





03.24: ​Introduction to Project Three; Going over Prompt; Synthesis Lecture
03.31:​ Watch ​Black Mirror, ​“Nosedive,” or “Generation Like” on YouTube & read McNamee’s “I Invested
Early…”
04.07: ​Compiling Ideas; Putting Texts in Conversation; Drafting
04.17: ​Peer Review via Blackboard
04.19: ​Final Unit Three Project Due on Sunday April 19​th​ by 11:59 p.m.
S​LOS​:
→ Develop an effective process of reading​ for comprehension –including identifying the
rhetorical context of a text, interacting* with the text using a variety of reading strategies,
understanding how the text might relate to other texts.
→ Develop an effective writing process​—including prewriting, drafting, revision,
and self-evaluation.
→ Analyze​ the elements of academic texts—particularly argument, genre, audience,
context, purpose, and strategies.
RWS 280
Spring 2020
→ Articulate​ in writing key rhetorical concepts.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
RWS 280 SDSU Black Mirror Rhetorical Strategies and Appeals Paper Hello,Please write an essay about two article, 5 pages, the prompt and one of the article
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay
Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.