Boyd vs Turkle

The two lectures given by Turkle and Boyd is about a theme best expressed in the own words of Sherry Turkle: “We’re letting it (technology) take us places we don’t want to go.” Although, this main idea is presented and argued with different styles and techniques. These two lectures are presented to two different audiences and use separate examples to support their own case.

Sherry Turkle presents her case at a TED conference, she’s address an audience in more of an academic setting. She vividly used visual aid and her lecturing style is reminiscent of a college lecture. Furthermore, the very way she is dressed, to the items she references and talks about are of academic nature. She, very early on, established herself to the as a leading researcher and academic in the area of Digital Media. She goes on to reference her many publications and her notoriety on WIRED magazine. Her lecture is very methodical and does not focus on such a precise target. It’s more of a broad focus; this useful to provoke intellectual thought.

Danah Boyd’s lecture setting is less academic but also has an audience uniquely relevant to the lecture subject. This setting is less formal. She receives a introduction with a casual nature, albeit it brightly highlights her qualifications in the subject. The introduction also noted that there are parents present among the audience. This is significant; Boyd is address a fair amount of family oriented people. Although, she’s also an established expert, her talk was more of a conversational nature. Boyd is dressed informal clothing, so is her introductory presenter. Boyd specifically talks about examples that happen in a intra-family situation. Both of the speakers avidly “talk with their hands;” perhaps this suggest a evidence oriented argumentative lecture.

Turkle’s lecture focuses more on the big picture. It has a darker tone and more pessimistic attitude. She blatantly expresses her reversal of her personal perspective about technology. She highlight technology in general in a darker portrayal. Such as the adverse effects of technology on adolescent development. Because technology allows humans to edit and refine themselves, they lack the experience of real time interaction. They’re connected through digital space; this she calls sacrificing conversation for connection. She puts a lot of emphasis on being alone, even in the active use of technology. According to Turkle, this event is detrimental to human development and the human experience.

Boyd’s take on The internet is spoken through a cautionary tone. Interestingly, she decides to focus more on the Internet, instead of technology. She targets the openness of the web. She provides many examples of how the web lacks boundaries to distinguish its members. Most example revolved around adolescents who would post on Facebook and have some the post was not intended for comment on that message. Whether it’s an overbearing parent or a friend/family that belonged to a different cultural group, anyone would be able to see your online activities. Boyd within every example also states how these young people deal with their unique situations. her argument of technology, mainly social media, is that it redefines the meaning of being public. She appreciates how parents, young people and people in general deal with current problems of social media.

Boyd’s lecture was more centered on the network aspect of social media, Turkle’s was more about technology. Boyd and Turkle had different tones. Boyd encouraged people to tackle the problems associated with social media. She emphasized that young people should brought with proper education and insight into the web. Turkle talked about how technology was taking away from the human experience of interaction and relationships. Two different focus with, respectively, appropriate tones and presentation. Turkle lectured about the grim subject; Boyd’s lecture was more hopeful. They both still reflect upon a hazy theme: “We’re letting it (technology) take us places we don’t want to go.” This theme is presented with different urgencies and subject matter, but similarities of what both women talked about are clear. Both lectures were intuitive and interesting; possibly, they represent different opinions.