Sadly, due to a random illness that popped up before class on Tuesday, I was unable to attend. Because of this, I will admit that my understanding of digital rhetoric is more limited than I would like. However, I am going to try and give my own thoughts and views on the topic.
So through my understanding, digital rhetoric is the way that articles, posts, and other topics are written online. As we have discussed in the class, the way things are written digitally tend to be a tad bit different than the way we write in print media. When I try to think of the best example of this, I’d have to say Deadspin works pretty well. Deadspin is Gawker’s sports website, and the way that they write and argue is much different than any other sports site I follow. They are almost a mix between a blog and an actual online news source. Because of this, the interaction between the reader and the writer is going to be different.
For starters, Deadspin has a tendency to be pretty vulgar in their writing, something that a normal non digital magazine probably wouldn’t do. This in turn is basic permission for it’s readers to be vulgar back to the authors. I will fully admit that vulgarity seems to be part of digital rhetoric when it comes to websites that are not funded or related to main network sources. This tends to be the case on social media websites such as twitter and tumblr as well. Vulgarity and informality in digital rhetoric is something that I find almost too common in online writing. I wonder if this will continue as digital and online writing becomes more prominent.