This is a response to “Meet Facebook’s Mr. Nice: At Facebook, Creating Empathy Among Cyberbullying” by Nick Bilton, and “Social Networking Sites Cannot Be Blamed For Bullying” by Kate Harding.

Life in the 21st Century can often be cruel; cyber bullying rules the internet and social media, and often provides hurtful yet unnecessary content to make teenagers feel insecure about themselves. Cyberbullying is a major issue today, as it is very widespread among the internet and social media websites, and there is little that the social media websites can do to limit the amount of it. Although the problem is infamous and has been recognized, social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram can only do very little to block and prevent cyberbullying. The articles, “Meet Facebook’s Mr. Nice: At Facebook, Creating Empathy Among Cyberbullying” by Nick Bilton, and “Social Networking Sites Cannot Be Blamed For Bullying” by Kate Harding, both describe the serious issue that lies in cyberbullying, and what little authority and power the social media sites have over preventing it. Bilton’s article was more effective than Harding’s article due to its strong claim backed up by an abundance of statistical and factual evidence, as well as its informal tone and logical structure, which help organize his claim.
   

Bilton’s article contained a strong claim that was backed up by very substantial and quality evidence to help support it. The claim in his article was that cyberbullying on social media is often unintentional, and is rarely meant to be hurtful to the person it was directed to. In his article, Bilton backed up his claim mainly with statistical evidence as well as some factual evidence. Although Bilton believes that the cyberbullying on social media is largely unintentional, Bilton did include in his article that 65% of young adults 18 to 29 years old, that live in the US have been harassed online, and 92% have witnessed someone else being bullied. In attempt to remove cyberbullying from Facebook, Arturo Bejar and his team have added an option for a request to delete a post. This tool has been largely successful as 78% of users who wanted a post deleted sent a request. More importantly, this tool led to Bilton’s claim as it let users know when they have posted something hurtful. In the article it stated, “Facebook asked people why they shared a post that hurt someone else, around 90% of respondents said they thought their friends would like the post or would think it was funny.” This piece of evidence strongly supports his claim, showing that around 90% of cyberbullying is unintentional. Overall, Bilton’s strong claim was backed up with substantial evidence.

In addition to his strong claim and substantial evidence, Bilton’s informal tone and logical structure also helped make his article extremely effective. Bilton often uses an informal tone in the article, where he presents statistical evidence and backs it up with analysis, but then resorts to a more casual mood of writing, where he inserts anecdotes and quotes to help support his point. For example, in the article, he put a fact about how 90% of facebook posts that are harmful weren’t meant to hurt, and then he backed it up with a quote from Dacher Keltner, explaining the significance of that fact. In addition, his informal tone and simple diction allow the reader to comprehend what he is saying better, as oppose to him using a formal tone and complex diction, making it hard for the reader to comprehend. Bilton’s informal style of using quotes as well as his often sarcastic and unserious opinion allow for the article to be more enjoyable to read, as well as conveying the claim better. Bilton’s logical structure really complements his informal tone as it adds a sense of organization and structure to the article. Without his logical structure, the article would just turn into a randomly assorted pile of statistical evidence, quotes, personal opinions, and anecdotes. Overall, Bilton’s informal tone and logical structure help convey his claim more effectively, as well as making the article more comprehensible.

    Harding’s article was far less effective at supporting its claim, due its lack of statistical and factual evidence, as well as it overall being an angry rant with very little organization and structure. Some may argue that Harding’s claim was backed up by stronger evidence than Bilton’s due to the fact that Bilton had very little “real world” examples, while Harding’s article was loaded with them. However, this proposition is completely absurd and juvenile, as Harding provided no evidence whatsoever besides her opinions on the issue. In the entire article, Harding didn’t provide one fact or statistic to help support her claim, she just used personal anecdotes as well as quotes from a few college students and a high school principal. In addition to Harding having insufficient evidence, her tone, which was an angry rant, didn’t help convey and support her claim in the article. In the article, Harding’s unnecessary interjections as well as her cursing constantly distract the reader as they are focusing on that, oppose to her claim and evidence. For example, in her article, in the first paragraph on the second page, she added two of her completely biased thoughts in parenthesis, which really distracts the reader from what she is trying to say. In addition to that, Harding’s unconventional and illogical paragraph sequencing and structure make the article very difficult to follow and understand. Overall, Harding’s claim and evidence were far inferior to Bilton’s, and Harding’s angry rant, interjections, and illogical paragraphing sequencing all make her article less effective than Bilton’s.

    Bilton’s article was more effective than Harding’s article, due to its strong claim backed up by a colossal amount of statistical and factual evidence, as well as its informal tone and logical structure, which help organize his claim. Bilton’s article was very structured and organized, and contained a strong claim, which was backed up by substantial, relevant evidence. In addition, his informal tone, logical paragraph sequencing and structure, and simple diction all helped his article be very effective. However, Harding’s article was not structured and organized in the slightest bit, and contained a mediocre claim, which was backed up by unsubstantial anecdotal evidence. Also, her angry, aggressive tone, illogical paragraph sequencing and structure, and simple diction all made her article not very effective. Overall, Bilton’s article was more effective than Harding’s article, due to its superioress in all aspects.