At the beginning of this course, I viewed digital media in a much more casual way. A selfie was just a selfie. A platform was just a place to post something. AI was mostly something I thought of as useful, fast, or interesting. By the end of the term, that changed. What feels most new to me now is not just a set of concepts, but a different way of paying attention. I now think much more carefully about how digital media shapes expression, visibility, and meaning.
One of the biggest changes for me is that I no longer see selfies as simple personal images. Before this course, I probably would have thought of a selfie as just a picture someone takes of themselves. Now I see it as something much more constructed. A selfie is shaped by audience, platform, style, and cultural expectations. That became especially clear in my work on Assignments 3 and 4. When I worked with an AI-generated selfie, I realized that the image was not simply showing “me.” It was also showing what the system did with my choices, my wording, and the things I left open. That made me think differently about self-representation. It is not as direct or natural as it often seems.
This also connects to another important takeaway: technology is not neutral. That is probably one of the biggest things this course changed for me. One reading that made a strong impression on me was Chubb, Reed, and Cowling’s discussion of missing AI narratives. What stayed with me is the idea that AI is not just a tool that helps people make things faster. It also affects what kinds of stories are told, what gets repeated, and what might be missing. I kept thinking about that while working on my AI selfie project. The system did not simply follow my prompt in a neutral way. It interpreted what I gave it and filled in the rest using its own patterns. That made me realize that technology does not just deliver content. It also shapes it.
Gunter’s article on AI as both an opportunity and a challenge also stayed with me. Earlier in the term, I think I would have focused more on the opportunities. Now I still see those, but I also pay much more attention to the limits and problems. I think I have become more critical, especially when something looks polished or convincing. I do not automatically trust it just because it seems advanced or well made.
Another important change is that I now think more about diverse voices and narratives. This course made me pay more attention to who gets represented clearly online and who does not. Some voices fit dominant media formats more easily. Some stories are more visible because they match what platforms reward. Others are harder to see, harder to circulate, or more likely to be simplified. I think this changed the kinds of questions I ask when I look at digital content. Instead of only asking what something says, I now also ask who is speaking, who is missing, and whose perspective is being centered.
Course discussions and blog conversations also changed how I thought about these topics. They reminded me that digital media is not only something we analyze on our own. It is also something people interpret collectively, often from very different social and cultural positions. This made me more aware that online meaning is shaped not just by content itself, but also by the conversations, reactions, and assumptions that gather around it.
The course also changed how I think about information online more broadly. The module on misinformation and disinformation was especially useful for that. Rubin’s discussion of misinformation and disinformation online made me think more carefully about how digital platforms shape what people see and believe. Information online does not just spread on its own. It is filtered, repeated, amplified, and sometimes distorted. That matters because it influences how people understand the world. After this course, I am more aware of how algorithms, circulation, and platform design can affect not just content, but perception.
Assignment 4 also made me think differently about digital writing. Turning my critical analysis into a blog post showed me that changing format changes meaning. The same image does not feel the same in every space. In a paper, it worked as evidence inside a formal argument. In a blog, it became more immediate and more public-facing. That made me realize that digital communication is not just about what we say, but also how and where we say it.
My key takeaways from this course are pretty clear. First, I no longer see selfies as just casual images. Second, I no longer see technology as neutral. Third, I pay much more attention to representation, visibility, and diverse narratives. In the future, I think I will be more critical when I see AI-generated content, more aware of how platforms shape meaning, and more intentional about looking for voices and stories that are often overlooked.
What I appreciate most about this course is that it made digital media feel less obvious. Things I used to treat as normal or simple now seem much more layered. A selfie is not just a photo. A platform is not just a container. AI is not just a tool. That shift in perspective is probably the most important thing I am taking away from this course.
Comments
Post a Comment