Her Point Is

In his online article posted on July 4, 2008 titled '2b or not 2b?," David Crystal claims that the increase in the amount of texting and, consequently, the use of abbreviations and other text-slang, will not be the doom of the English language.  Instead, he asserts that it actually increases the creative capabilities of the users and allows for more avenues of exploration in the area of creative writing.  David also cites numerous studies claiming that children's literacy and vocabulary is actually improved by the use of text-slang.  He emphasizes this by saying, "The most important finding is that texting does not erode children's ability to read and write.  On the contrary, literacy improves. The latest studies... have found strong positive links between the use of text language and  the skills underlying success in standard English in pre-teenage children."
I support Crystal's ideas that texting does improve children's literacy.  These children do, as is states in the article, need to have a basic understanding of spelling and grammar in the first place in order to bend and break the rules.  But I also warn against these abbreviations and such merging into our spoken language.  It is no problem for the older generations who have grown up with a stronger foundation of grammatical structure and did not have mobile phones, but I am worried that the younger generations who begin texting at younger and younger ages may begin to forget their grammar lessons and embrace their text-speak as both their written and spoken forms of communication.  It is not a problem today, as these children still have parents and teachers who have been raised without all these technological innovations, but it may be a problem we encounter in the foreseeable future as the younger generations today begin having children of their own.  Once we reach this point, we may see a breakdown of the English language into an abbreviated, shorthand version of what it is today.

"Community" Critique

In this episode of "Community," social media is being satirized.  More specifically, they are making fun of the power that social media and functions such as "likes" on Facebook and "favorites" on Twitter have on society and on the individual.  The episode is trying to illustrate the ridiculousness of the amount of credit we give to how much attention and so-called "fame" we receive from social media and also the manipulative quality of the product. 

The imaginary app that is being used to illustrate their points is titled "MeowMeow Beenz" because it is something that would appeal to the average internet and smart phone user.  Cats are much beloved animals in the social media community, and so the "MeowMeow" part of the title of the app along with the cat logo would attract attention.  Also, the "Beenz" portion was influenced by the lingo that has been developed and has been labeled "cool" because of social media, which includes using a "z" instead of "s" and switching up vowel pairs.  The bizarre title of the app is the perfect, eye-catching lure to draw in the public to use this product.

They Say

 In an article from the October 4th, 2010 issue of The New Yorker titled "Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted," Malcom Gladwell argues that social media is not a tool to invoke any real sacrifice on the part of the average person.  He states that social media, namely Facebook and Twitter, is built on "weak ties" and is a means of gathering information and ideas from so-called "acquaintances" rather than actual friends with real connections to the person.  He illustrates his ideas by saying, "In other words, Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice."  While he lists a couple notable examples to back up this claim, I say that social media has brought people together in ways that no other media and/or social outlet has been able to do in years before.  As a whole, people want to help those less fortunate, but often times they are not aware of others who may need their help.  But when someone posts something on the internet and generates interest and awareness of the issue, it is then shared among that person's friends and spreads to an even wider range of people, and those who care and want to fill that need respond.  This response may just be sending some much needed money or food to a family whose house had burned down, or it could be attending the funeral of a veteran who passed away but had no remaining family members or friends left to attend.  These small sacrifices make a big difference. 
In conclusion, Gladwell says that social media only motivates people who are unwilling to make a "real sacrifice," but I say that if that sacrifice, no matter how small, makes a difference in the lives of those people, then it is a real sacrifice.  The magnitude of the sacrifice does not quantify whether or not it is life-changing for the individual that is affected.  Before we we dismiss social media as simply a network built on weak ties that will not cause any notable amount of difference, as Gladwell insinuates, let us first acknowledge the many sacrifices that real people have made for someone they do not know because of social media.  Social media is a tool for real social change and can be an excellent asset for bringing communities together and creating stronger bonds among a wider variety of people.