You are on page 1of 4

Schafer 1

Stephanie Schafer
Professor Kelly Turnbeaugh
English 1010
9 July 2016
Protecting the Privacy of Future Generations
Amy Webb writes that when parents post every major and minor event of their children's
lives online, they are essentially robbing them of their privacy, not only today, but in the future as
well. The author mentions that our identities are linked to our faces, especially in a
technologically advancing world. Webb explains the accessibility of information over the
internet, and the implications of posting children's pictures to social media. The article talks
about the problems that come from Millennials sharing too much information over social media,
and how the older generations have helped create those problems.
The author's credibility comes from her position as the founder and chief executive of
Webbmedia Group, a forecasting and strategy agency. Webbmedia Group, now known as Future
Today Institute "investigates emerging technology in order to forecast the future."
( Her understanding of technological trends adds a deeper appeal to
ethos. Her opinion is that social media is an open book, where nothing is private and everything
is accessible to anyone who knows where to look. This opinion seems quite realistic when
looked at through the lens of her background as she understands how to predict the technological
future based on trends and patterns set years ago into today. It is easy for one to trust her
Not only is Webb sound in her opinion of technology, but she also appeals to the
Aristotelian element of logos, or logic, reason, and proof. The way she addresses the audience by

Schafer 2
opening with a scenario that is familiar to anyone using social media or technology makes her
point easy to relate to. An individual with a cell phone has undoubtedly taken a photograph of a
family member or smaller child such as a niece, son, grandchild, or even a neighbor. Beyond
that, almost anyone in today's society has uploaded a photo to Instagram, Facebook, or other
form of social media. She combines the two factors in such a way that makes sense to readers
and seems logical compared to the alternative.
Although she appears to be a credible source of information, Webb does not give many
forms of evidence. So it is easy to believe her but there is nothing "sound" backing up her
argument besides personal experience with social media. Would readers from an older generation
have as easy a time finding her argument valid? A few statistics or more examples might have
helped solidify her point to those with less experience online.
The author appeals to emotions and feelings with pathos by giving examples of how easy
it is to cross a line from innocent to invading privacy. The expense of children's privacy in the
future is easy to relate to as a negative idea, and it is argued factually, yet compassionately
enough, so as to aid one who had not before considered the idea that posting such pictures online
was something to do with more caution. Her plea also comes from her relation to being a parent
herself. She empathizes with those who may consider her point of view to be cold or hardhearted, and by relating to her audience, makes her case more clear and in perspective.
This piece was very clear and easy to relate to. In fact, the alternative of posting photos of your
or others' children seems barbaric in nature after reading the opinion of this futurist, tech-savvy
parent, who seems to have the privacy of children as her main concern, and the understanding,
credibility, and reason to support it.

Schafer 3
She is successful in her ability to persuade readers in similar situations because she
genuinely sounds concerned about the implications of posting photos of children online. Her
success comes also through her position at Webbmedia Group. She is an authority on the subject
of technological advances. Webb achieves her desired effect of influencing readers to see things
her way without sounding like an extremist.

Schafer 4
Works Cited
N.p., 2016, web 6 July 2016.
Webb, Amy. Give Your Children a Chance at Privacy. The New York Times. Room for Debate,
18 Aug. 2014.