THEORIZING DIGITAL RHETORIC

Theorizing Digital Rhetoric takes up the intersection of rhetorical theory and digital
technology to explore the ways in which rhetoric is challenged by new
technologies and how rhetorical theory can illuminate discursive expression in
digital contexts. The volume combines complex rhetorical theory with personal
anecdotes about the use of technologies to create a larger philosophical and
rhetorical account of how theorists approach the examination of new and future
digital technologies. This collection of essays emphasizes the ways that digital
technology intrudes upon rhetorical theory and how readers can be everyday
rhetorical critics within an era of ever-increasing use of digital technology.
Each chapter effectively blends theorizing between rhetoric and digital
technology, informing readers of the potentiality between the two ideas. The
theoretical perspectives informed by digital media studies, rhetorical theory, and
personal/professional use provide a robust accounting of digital rhetoric that is
timely, personable, and useful.

Aaron Hess is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Communication at Arizona

State University, USA. He is the co-author of Participatory Critical Rhetoric:Theoretical
and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric In Situ (Lexington, 2015). His
research follows two primary avenues: the participatory elements of rhetorical
advocacy and digital rhetorical expression. His work can be found in a variety of
scholarly journals, including the International Journal of Communication, Critical Studies
in Media Communication, New Media and Society, and Media, Culture and Society.

Amber Davisson is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Keene State

College, USA. She is the author of Lady Gaga and the Remaking of Celebrity Culture
(McFarland, 2013) and the co-editor of Controversies in Digital Ethics (Bloomsbury,
2016). Her interdisciplinary scholarship on identity, politics, and digital technology
has appeared in journals such as Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Transformative Works and
Culture, Journal of Media and Digital Literacy, Journal of Visual Literacy, and American
Communication Journal.
THEORIZING DIGITAL
RHETORIC

Edited by Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson

First published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2018 Taylor & Francis

The right of Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson to be identified as the authors of
the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Names: Hess, Aaron, editor. | Davisson, Amber L., editor.
Title: Theorizing digital rhetoric / edited by Aaron Hess and Amber Davisson.
Description: New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017004573 | ISBN 978-1-138-70238-7 (hardback) |
ISBN 978-1-138-70239-4 (pbk.) | ISBN 978-1-315-20364-5 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Rhetoric—Data processing | Digital media. | Online
authorship.
Classification: LCC P301.5.D37 T456 2017 | DDC 808.00285—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017004573

ISBN: 978-1-138-70238-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-70239-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-20364-5 (ebk)

Typeset in Bembo
by FiSH Books Ltd, Enfield
CONTENTS

Contributors viii
Preface xiii
Acknowledgments xv

1 Introduction: Theorizing Digital Rhetoric 1

Aaron Hess

PART I
Philosophical and Rhetorical Conceptualizations of
Digital Technology 17

2 Critique of Digital Reason 19

David J. Gunkel

3 The Terms of Technoliberalism 32

Damien Smith Pfister

4 Rhetorical Affects in Digital Media 43

Jay Brower

5 Digital Rhetoric and the Internet of Things 55

James P. Zappen
vi Contents

6 Towards a Minor Assemblage: An Introduction to the

Clickable World 68
J. Macgregor Wise

PART II
Digital Intrusions in Rhetorical Theory 83

7 From Coercion to Community Building: Technological

Affordances as Rhetorical Forms 85
Amber Davisson and Angela C. Leone

8 Fluidity in a Digital World: Choice, Communities, and

Public Values 98
Ashley Hinck

9 The Rhetorical Agency of Algorithms 112

Jessica Reyman

10 The New Data: Argumentation amid, on, with, and in Data 126
Candice Lanius and Gaines S. Hubbell

11 Where is the Body in Digital Rhetoric? 140

Brett Lunceford

12 Reviving Identity Politics: Strategic Essentialism,

Identity Politics, and the Potential for Cross-Racial Vernacular
Discourse in the Digital Age 153
Vincent N. Pham

PART III
Being Rhetorical Critics in Our Digital Lives 167

13 Toward a Digital Methodology for Ideographic Criticism:

A Case Study of “Equality” 169
Michelle G. Gibbons and David W. Seitz

14 Hashtags and Attention through the Tetrad: The Rhetorical

Circulation of #ALSIceBucketChallenge 184
Jennifer Reinwald
 Contents vii

15 Ethics, Agency, and Power: Toward an Algorithmic Rhetoric 196

Jeremy David Johnson

16 Pinning, Gazing, and Swiping Together: Identification in

Visually Driven Social Media 209
Hillary A. Jones

17 I Am What I Play and I Play What I Am: Constitutive

Rhetoric and the Casual Games Market 224
Shira Chess

Afterword: Digital Rhetoric at a Later Time 234

Brian L. Ott

Index 240
CONTRIBUTORS

Jay Brower (Ph.D.) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication

and Media Arts at Western Connecticut State University. His research clustered
around phenomenology, rhetoric, and media and is directed toward developing an
account of individual and collective trauma, in particular, as these moments
implicate expressions of affect, meaning, and judgment.

Shira Chess is an Assistant Professor of Entertainment and Media Studies in the

Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of
Georgia. She received her Ph.D. in Communication and Rhetoric from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute. She is the author of Ready Player Two: Women Gamers and
Designed Identity (University of Minnesota Press, 2017) and co-author of Folklore,
Horror Stories, and the Slender Man:The Development of an Internet Mythology (Palgrave
Pivot, 2015). Her research has been published in Critical Studies in Media
Communication, The Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Feminist Media
Studies, New Media and Society, Games and Culture, and Information, Communication
and Society, as well as several essay collections.

Amber Davisson is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Keene State

College. She is the author of Lady Gaga and the Remaking of Celebrity Culture
(McFarland, 2013) and the co-editor of Controversies in Digital Ethics (Bloomsbury,
2016). Her interdisciplinary scholarship on identity, politics, and digital technology
has appeared in journals such as Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Journal of Media and
Digital Literacy, Journal of Visual Literacy, Transformative Works and Culture, and
American Communication Journal.

Michelle G. Gibbons (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is an Assistant Professor of

Communication at the University of New Hampshire. Her research interests
 Contributors ix

include the rhetoric of science, visual rhetoric, vernacular public discourse, and the
digital humanities. Her work has appeared in Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Philosophy
of Science, Journalism History, and Argumentation and Advocacy.

David J. Gunkel is an award-winning educator and scholar, specializing in the

philosophy of technology with a special focus on ethics and emerging tech. He is
the author of over 50 scholarly articles and has published seven books, including
Thinking Otherwise: Philosophy, Communication, Technology (Purdue University Press,
2007), The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics (MIT Press,
2012), Heidegger and the Media (Polity, 2014), and Of Remixology: Ethics and Aesthetics
After Remix (MIT Press, 2016). He currently holds the position of Distinguished
Teaching Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois
University (USA) and is the founding co-editor of the International Journal of Žižek
Studies and the Indiana University Press book series Digital Game Studies. See
http://gunkelweb.com for more information.

Aaron Hess is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Communication at Arizona

State University. He is the co-author of Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and
Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric In Situ (Lexington, 2015). His
research trajectory follows two primary avenues: the active participatory elements
of rhetorical advocacy and the exploration of digital contexts for rhetorical
expression. His work can be found in a number of scholarly journals, including
International Journal of Communication, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,
Communication Studies, Critical Studies in Media Communication, New Media and
Society, and Media, Culture and Society.

Ashley Hinck is an Assistant Professor in the Communication Arts Department at

Xavier University where she teaches in the Digital Media major. Hinck’s research
examines fan-based citizenship performances as new civic practices emerging from
networked media. These fan-based citizenship performances are anchored in
online fan communities and ground civic actions in fan values and identities.
Hinck’s research has appeared in Communication Theory, Argumentation and Advocacy,
Transformative Works and Cultures, and the Cinema Journal Teaching Dossier.

Gaines S. Hubbell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the

University of Alabama in Huntsville where he directs the composition program.
His research reclaims theories and practices of topical invention from the recent
history of rhetoric and applies them in modern composition, pedagogy, and newer
media environments. He also works in games criticism and serves as the technical
editor for the Journal of Games Criticism. His recent co-authored article, “Working
Out Memory with a Medal of Honor Complex,” is available from Game Studies
(December 2015).

Jeremy David Johnson is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of

x Contributors

Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University. His

research focuses on the role of digital technology in rhetorical ecologies, network
dynamics, and individual and collective identity. His dissertation considers how
algorithms exhibit agency and shape democratic engagement.

Hillary A. Jones (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is an Assistant Professor in

the Department of Communication at California State University, Fresno. Her
research explores how speculative, utopian/dystopian, and science fiction texts,
across media, enable and constrain ways of being in the world. She is the co-editor
of the fifth edition of Readings in Rhetorical Criticism (Strata, 2017). Her work has
appeared in Critical Studies in Media Communication, Southern Communication Journal,
Journal of Communication and Religion, and Communication, Culture, and Critique.

Candice Lanius is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Communication and

Media at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She currently holds a Humanities, Arts,
and Social Sciences Fellowship and serves as co-chair of the Research Data
Alliance’s interest group on Ethical and Social Aspects of Data Sharing. Her disser-
tation focuses on the politics and rhetoric of big social data analytics.

Angela C. Leone (M.A., Northwestern University; B.A., Willamette University)

is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Communication Studies, Program in
Rhetoric and Public Culture, at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.

Brett Lunceford (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is a rhetorician who

focuses on the intersections between the body, sexuality, and technology. He is the
author of the book Naked Politics: Nudity, Political Action, and the Rhetoric of the Body
and more than three dozen articles and book chapters. His work has appeared in
journals such as Communication Law Review, ETC: A Review of General Semantics,
Explorations in Media Ecology, Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Review of
Communication, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Theology and Sexuality. He recently
completed a six-year term as Founding Editor of the Journal of Contemporary
Rhetoric and serves as President of the Media Ecology Association.

Brian L. Ott (Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University) is Professor and Chair of

Communication Studies at Texas Tech University. His primary research interests
concern the way that mediated rhetorics equip people to live their daily lives. He
is the author of The Small Screen: How Television Equips Us to Live in the Information
Age and Critical Media Studies: An Introduction (2nd edition), as well as a co-editor
of It’s Not TV: Watching HBO in the Post-Television Era, Places of Public Memory: The
Rhetoric of Museums and Memorials, and The Routledge Reader in Rhetorical Criticism.

Damien Smith Pfister (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is an Associate Professor

of Communication at the University of Maryland. His work takes up questions
related to the intersections of digitally networked media, rhetorical practice, public
 Contributors xi

deliberation, new technology, and visual culture. He is the author of Networked

Media, Networked Rhetorics: Attention and Deliberation in the Early Blogosphere
(Pennsylvania State University Press, 2014) and a co-editor of Ancient Rhetorics +
Digital Networks (Alabama, 2017). His work has been featured in journals such as
Philosophy and Rhetoric, Argumentation and Advocacy, Environmental Communication,
and Rhetoric Review.

Vincent N. Pham (Ph.D., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) is an Assistant

Professor of Civic Communication and Media at Willamette University, where he
is also affiliate faculty in the American Ethnic Studies program. His work focuses
on questions of race, rhetoric, and the media, particularly as they affect the Asian
American community. His work has appeared in the Journal of International and
Intercultural Communication, Asian American Literature Review, and Cinema Journal as
well as various edited collections. He is the co-author of Asian Americans and the
Media with Kent A. Ono (Polity, 2009) and co-editor of The Routledge Companion
to Asian American Media (Routledge, 2017).

Jennifer Reinwald is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at the

University of Pittsburgh. Her current research investigates how theories of media
ecology and rhetoric can illuminate digital practices. She is also interested in
discourses surrounding obesity, fat acceptance, and eating disorders, particularly as
it manifests in online communities.

Jessica Reyman is an award-winning teacher–scholar for the Department of

English at Northern Illinois University. Her research interests include digital
rhetoric and law and ethics online. She is author of The Rhetoric of Intellectual
Property: Copyright Law and the Regulation of Digital Culture (Routledge, 2010). Her
work has also appeared in the journals College English, College Composition and
Communication, and Technical Communication Quarterly.

David W. Seitz is an Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at

Penn State University, Mont Alto, where he teaches courses on rhetoric, speech,
media, propaganda, and cultural studies. His research interests include rhetorical
theory and criticism, visual/material rhetoric, public memory, and social justice.

J. Macgregor Wise is a Professor of Communication Studies at Arizona State

University. His areas of research include cultural studies of technology, global-
ization, media, and surveillance. He is author of Surveillance and Film (Bloomsbury
Academic, 2016), Culture and Technology: A Primer (with Jennifer Daryl Slack, 2nd
edition, Peter Lang, 2015), Cultural Globalization: A User’s Guide (Blackwell, 2008),
MediaMaking: Mass Media in a Popular Culture (with Lawrence Grossberg, Ellen
Wartella, and D. Charles Whitney, 2nd edition, Sage, 2005), and Exploring Technology
and Social Space (Sage, 1997). He also co-edited New Visualities, New Technologies:The
New Ecstasy of Communication (with Hille Koskela, Ashgate, 2013).
xii Contributors

James P. Zappen is Professor, Department of Communication and Media,

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He is author of The Rebirth of Dialogue (State
University of New York Press) and has published articles in Philosophy and Rhetoric,
Rhetoric Review, Rhetorica, Technical Communication Quarterly, and other journals. He
teaches courses in digital rhetoric, literature, and writing.
PREFACE

As many projects do, this book began with a conference discussion. At the 2015
National Communication Association Conference, Amber organized a roundtable
discussion of scholars working to theorize the field of digital rhetoric. Panelists
were asked to respond to the question: “How might we rethink rhetorical theory
in the context of the internet?” What emerged from the panel was a series of key
concepts that showed the intersections between rhetoric and digital theorizing.
Panelists explored the interrelationship between rhetoric and digital technology, an
entanglement that is not likely to be undone any time soon. Perhaps more
interesting than the particular theories addressed at the panel was that during the
discussion the panelists each talked personally about how rhetoric has helped them
think about their digital lives, and how their digital lives have helped them think
about what it means to be a rhetorician. Panelists shared stories of modding an old
Xbox and spending time on Harry Potter fansites. Panelists talked about the magic
they experienced when using the Google search engine, and the moment of panic
they had when personalized advertising got a little too accurate. Yes, the digital was
helping these scholars to rethink rhetorical scholarship, and rhetoric was helping
them to make important contributions to academic conversations about digital
technology. However, more than that, theories from both sides of the fence were
helping them to make sense of their daily lives. It was out of the experience of this
discussion that we began to organize the edited collection.
We took as our charge for this collection the sentiment from Kenneth Burke
that good theory is equipment for living. As academics, we have spent a lot of time
arming ourselves with this equipment. We also spend large portions of our lives
immersed in digital technology. Our training as rhetoricians has helped us navigate
our lived experiences online and our increased immersion in digital technology has
been critical to how we understand the field of rhetoric. Based on the experience
of sharing stories on the panel, our goal with this collection was to invite scholars
xiv Preface

in the field of digital rhetoric to really think about how the intersection of being
a rhetorician and being digital has shaped the way we navigate increasingly
mediated lives. One element that embodied the spirit of the everyday experience,
and that made the panel discussion particularly strong, was the sharing of the
personal narratives that people brought in to their scholarly work. Those personal
narratives are threaded throughout this collection. We hope the stories in this
book—of first encounters with online messaging systems, of the irritations of error
messages, of the intrusions of mobile technology, and of the pleasure of building
online communities that transcend the boundaries of physical communities—will
help readers understand that theories live in our everyday interactions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Editing a book aimed at theorizing the field of digital rhetoric, a field that is both
relatively young and situated within conversations that are arguably quite mature,
is a challenging undertaking. We owe many thank yous to a host of individuals
who have provided support along the way as we have developed this collection.
Thank you to the many people who, over the years, have sat with us in conference
sessions, hotel lobbies, and bars and philosophized about the emerging field of
digital rhetoric. This collection is the product of many long conversations, and you
have our heartfelt thanks.
We owe many thanks to our contributors. They worked tirelessly to complete
multiple drafts and often with a very tight turnaround time. We appreciate your
thoughtful work, your willingness to share your personal experiences, and the
diligence with which you have each pursued complex theoretical questions. A
special thanks to Brian Ott for his work to help establish the field of digital
rhetoric, and his willingness to contribute such an insightful afterword to the
collection.
Amber would like to acknowledge her colleagues at Keene State College. Their
support and encouragement makes it possible to see projects like this through to
the end. A special thanks for the Arts and Humanities Faculty Research Group.
They have provided a network of fellow scholars that always pushes members to
keep working. She would also like to thank her husband Christopher Wood for
providing continued moral support, and her son Thaddeus Wood for being there
with the comic relief. The two of you make my work fun.
Aaron would like to acknowledge his supportive colleagues at Arizona State
University and in the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts. This unit takes
pride in its commitment to digital pedagogical innovations and interdisciplinary
thinking, both of which encourage me to think deeply about the role of rhetoric
in technology and teaching. Also, he would like to thank his family. To Kristy,
xvi Acknowledgments

Grayson, and Benson, many thanks for putting up with the hectic schedule of
academia and the endless turnaround of projects. I’m glad that we four find the
time to dance and laugh along the way.

Aaron Hess
Amber Davisson
1
INTRODUCTION
Theorizing Digital Rhetoric

Aaron Hess

In a recent classroom discussion, I told my students about how I can recall a time
when the world wasn’t networked. A time when our phones didn’t accompany us
everywhere, when the news was on paper, and when the family set of encyclo-
pedias was considered valuable. Yet, even as I tell that story, I still consider myself
somewhat of a digital native. The internet “came out” when I was in high school,
and I had the fortune of growing up in the San Francisco Bay Area and living in
the Silicon Valley in the late ’90s. Technology was all around me in my
adolescence as stories of the new superfast 56K modem circulated among my
social groups.
Like many around my age, I can specifically recall the first time I went online
to “surf the web.” My friends and I had picked up one of those ten-hours-free
America Online (AOL) discs that seemed to endlessly appear on my doorstep. I had
heard about the internet through TV shows and other kids at school, but had not
had a chance to try it out. That first night with two of my best friends would be
a first step in a strange relationship with technology. As console gamers, we were
pretty equipped to handle the digital world, or so we thought. We put in all the
requisite credit card information and logged on. Chat rooms, the World Wide Web,
and all kinds of “cybersurfing” were just waiting for us across the ether. As we heard
what would become that ever familiar sound of a ’90s modem connecting to the
internet, we waited to see what all the fuss was about.
Not really knowing what to do, we ventured on into this new arena, looking
for interesting chat rooms or people. A message popped up from
“AOLadmin9617.” It said, “Greetings AOL user! Your credit card information is
in need of verification. Please provide your number and expiration date or your
session will be terminated.” As we scrambled to find the credit card and
frantically enter in the numbers, it dawned on me that this may not be real. “Wait
a second, why would it ask us for the info again? How do we know that this is
2 Aaron Hess

a real AOL rep?” I inquired openly. We paused to deliberate and then closed the
window.

***

This volume explores the intersection between rhetoric and digital technology.
Much like my earliest experiences with AOL, the discipline of rhetoric has
approached technology and the internet with curiosity, trepidation, and awe. For
scholars interested in rhetoric, the growing relationship between discourse and
technology is one that is nearly impossible to ignore. As many of the authors in
this volume will attest, digital technology impacts nearly every element of contem-
porary society, from wearable technology that tracks footsteps and heartbeats to the
influence of social media upon politics and presidential elections. Similarly, the idea
of rhetoric is one that also pervades most every element of our daily interactions,
from trying to convince our bosses for a raise to deliberating over the political
future of the country. Together, the concept of digital rhetoric is both old and
young; old insofar as the study of rhetoric dates back as far as recorded history and
young in terms of recent revolutions in technological growth that have occurred
or are still occurring. Both theory and method have been significantly challenged
by the advent and progression of technology in the past few decades, and I would
expect that these challenges will only continue as digital technology continues to
grow.
In this opening chapter, I chart some of the recent thinking about digital
rhetoric. Although young, the concept has received a considerable amount of
attention in the past twenty years. Prominent scholars in the field—many of whom
are in this volume—began the conversation about the digital rhetoric in the early
’90s. Looking back, even the most profound theory of the time will undoubtedly
look quaint by contemporary standards; much like how this very volume might
look dated in few short years. So it goes with technology. Yet, the need remains for
scholars of rhetoric to be well-versed in the rapid changes of technology and the
myriad ways that users adapt and create within digital contexts. Indeed, the field of
rhetoric has frequently recognized the need for integrating media studies theory
and technology into its theoretical canon (Benson 1996; Kennedy 1999;
McKerrow 2010; Miller 2003; Silvestri 2013; Warnick and Heineman 2012). As
many authors in this volume will explain, digital rhetoric is not merely the addition
of technology to rhetoric—or vice versa—and “stir.” The concept of digital
rhetoric requires sustained attention to the ways that rhetoric changes in a techno-
logical era and how technology is shaped by human expression both about and
through the technology itself. Because of this, each of the authors in this volume
takes up key challenges in rhetorical theory brought about by the advances in
technology as well as the ways in which rhetorical theory can inform our
understanding of how language shapes our understanding of technology.
 Introduction 3

Digital Rhetoric: A Brief Definitional Chronology

As with many scholarly enterprises, this volume steps into a longer and larger
conversation about digital rhetoric. The influence of technology on speech dates
back at least to Plato, who questioned the role of writing as a technology in the
Phaedrus (Ong 1982). His fears of writing—ironically expressed in the written
dialogue—resonate in contemporary circles as well. Those who express concerns
about a generation of social media users as unable to take up face-to-face conver-
sations may find comfort in Socrates, who during the dialogue decries the lack of
human interaction found in the written word. This point of origin for the conver-
sation about speech and technology sets the stage for millennia, but as
communication technology rapidly advanced in the twentieth century, rhetorical
scholars reacted with new ideas about the relationship between technology,
language, and identity. In this section, I briefly outline some of the major
milestones in theorizing digital rhetoric.
Before getting to what is commonly understood as “digital” technology, it is
worth noting that many elements of digital rhetoric and digital media studies are
indebted to previous works regarding traditional or “old” media, such as Marshall
McLuhan’s (1964) discussions of mass media, Stuart Hall’s (2006) offerings in
cultural studies, or Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s (1988) thorough investigation into the
role of mass media in presidential politicking. Much of the theorizing of digital
media studies and digital rhetoric can be traced back into larger discussions of
media writ large (Herbig, Herrmann, and Tyma 2015). Yet, simultaneously, digital
rhetoric is marked with a departure from the models of centralized “old” media,
especially when accented with a tailored, individualized experience and partici-
patory sensibility. For example, Lev Manovich’s highly influential work The
Language of New Media explores the cultural logics of new media through both a
historical understanding of cinema—as an “old” medium—and by examining new
features of digital media at this time. The relationship between traditional media
theorizing and digital rhetoric is beyond the scope of this volume, but should be
recognized as a fundamental starting point for understanding digital technology. As
with many elements of scholarship, the belief that technological novelty can fully
surpass theory is a mistaken assumption. Instead, as Manovich (2001: 8) encourages
us, the history of media can be seen as “a succession of distinct and equally
expressive languages, each with its own aesthetic variables, and each closing off
some of the possibilities of its predecessor.” As such, in what follows, I trace the
development of key elements of digital rhetoric through innovations in technology,
not to say that one replaces the previous, but to recognize that coming to a
definition or understanding of digital technology is an iterative process dependent
on changes in technology, usage, history, and theory.
Since the advent of personal computing, many scholars have questioned the
ways in which these new, everyday technologies would change the way we speak
and write. Early on, with the growing popularity of bulletin board systems, internet
relay chat or other chat rooms, and email, many theorists offered fresh perspectives
4 Aaron Hess

on the study of rhetoric (Benson 1996). Over time, the practice and study of digital
rhetoric has adapted along with the new technologies, such as Web 2.0, social
media practices, and locative media. These technologies often embrace new forms
of embodiment, physicality, and mobility, drawing new attention to cyborgian
claims (Haraway 1991). As will be discussed below, the nature of “digital” rhetoric
is troubled by a false bifurcation between digital and analog, as if the analog body
shuts off when it embraces a keyboard and screen. More often, the body and
machine work in tandem with physical spaces, much more so than with mere static
screens located in particular rooms of the home office. Looking back toward that
early theorizing, however, provides a vital starting point for considering the
evolution of the term to this contemporary moment.
The term “digital rhetoric” can be traced back to Richard Lanham’s (1992)
influential essay with the same name. There, Lanham maps out movements in art
and aesthetic theory to contend that both the “digital computer” and “electronic
text” are works of art motivated by “play and purpose” (ibid.: 241). Writing in the
larger context of online literacy, Lanham traces the aesthetic of the computer
display as an outgrowth of postmodern trends in visual arts. While an important
moment in offering a foundation for connecting digital computation with
rhetoric, his early formulation does not fully elaborate on the conditions for
speaking and writing within this playful environment. Later, Lanham (1993)
furthered his claims about the aesthetic value in computational and hypertext
discourse, connecting it to larger concerns in the university system. Others at the
time, such as George Landow (1994), Jay David Bolter (2001), and Stuart
Moulthrop (1994), explored the potential of hypertext for creating new composi-
tional environments, forms of literacy, and a rhizomatic epistemology. Literacy
remained a persistent concern as these new technologies took hold. Kathleen
Welch (1999) termed this new intersection of rhetoric, literacy, and technology as
“electric rhetoric,” which was understood as “the new merger of the written and
the oral, both now newly empowered and reconstructed by electricity and both
dependent on print literacy” (ibid.: 104). Again, the understanding of rhetoric
within these newly networked spaces reflected upon previous technologies (print)
and how they can be comprehended on the “electric” screen. How students and
citizens engaged these technologies required rhetorical theory to be reconsidered
with due attention to changes in reading, writing, and speaking.
Thus, scholars quickly recognized that rhetorical theories, classical or modern,
“left unmodified, are inadequate” (Welch 1999: 104). Case studies and other
observations of the changing dynamics of online communication led the retheo-
rizing of rhetoric in this regard. For example, Laura Gurak (1997) offered a
groundbreaking discussion of online protest during the infancy of internet
communication. Here, she recognizes how key functions of rhetoric, in particular
ethos and delivery, are altered when analyzed online. Prefacing Welch’s (1999)
concerns about rhetorical theory, Gurak’s (1997) systematic analysis of the Lotus
and Clipper Chip controversies provides a vital justification for recognizing that
rhetorical theory, when considered in digital contexts, requires adaptation in order
 Introduction 5

to consider the ways that online protests and argument are fundamentally altered.
Similarly, Barbara Warnick (1998: 73) recognized the need to examine “electronic
environments” and reposition theory in relation to changing dynamics of
technology and later implored rhetorical scholars to “look under the hood” of
digital texts to grasp not only the manifest meanings of digital texts, but also of
their latent, fundamental ordering as code (Warnick 2005: 332). Her call signals a
key shift in understanding digital rhetoric as scholarship moved into the new
millennium.
The early 2000s heralded key moments in digital rhetoric. A number of highly
influential works were published that established a strong justification for and
robust accounting of digital rhetoric. It is during this time that the most thorough
definitional work is offered. Laura Gurak (2001) continued theorizing about
literacy in Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with Awareness, offering four key
components—speed, reach, anonymity, and interactivity—that constitute much of
online communication. Later, along with Smiljana Antonijevic, she mixes ethos,
kairos, community/collaboration, and delivery into her understanding of digital
rhetoric (Gurak and Antonijevic 2009). James Zappen (2005) picked up on Gurak
and others—including Lev Manovich—by integrating the previous components
into a theoretical position that attempts “to explain how traditional rhetorical
strategies of persuasion function and how they are being reconfigured in digital
spaces” (Zappen 2005: 319). In this way, the persistent definitional focus of digital
rhetoric has been about the reconfiguration of rhetorical theory within digitality.
Finally, and most recently, scholars have paid close attention to the ways that
networking technologies have created fresh challenges to the theorizing of digital
rhetoric. Combined with previous calls for understanding its computational or
mathematical underpinnings, these theorists rightfully blend the expression of
digital rhetoric on the screen with its massively networked quality. For example,
Elizabeth Losh (2009: 47–48) outlines four positions to consider digital rhetoric
that move from the everyday experience of technology, to public discourse from
governmental institutions, to the scholarly understanding of computer-generated
media as objects of study, to information sciences that quantify human expression
online. This work recognizes that the vastness of networked technologies spans
from everyday experience to the top-most elements of government. Damien
Pfister (2014), offering an alternative to digital rhetoric with “networked
rhetorics,” underscores the social and communicative elements of technology. This
shift recognizes both the ubiquity of digital technologies and that the forms of
expression found within such technologies have become increasingly social in
nature. Accenting the ubiquity, Douglas Eyman (2015) has taken up a thorough
exploration of digital rhetoric and its various definitions, believing that digital
rhetoric is most simply the application of rhetorical theory to digital texts and
performances. Each of these definitional moments recognizes that digital rhetoric
evolves as technology does and as technological tools become increasingly
widespread.
6 Aaron Hess

Digital Rhetoric: Our Current Moment

Digital rhetoric will be defined in a number of ways throughout this volume.
Much like its root concept of “rhetoric,” the definition largely depends on
particular theorists and their approach to its study. Yet, I offer the following as a
stepping stone to consider: Digital rhetoric is the study of meaning-making, persuasion,
or identification as expressed through language, bodies, machines, and texts that are created,
circulated, or experienced through or regarding digital technologies. Since antiquity, rhetoric
has traditionally been about speech and language as delivered for specific audiences.
Adding digital to that concept signals that digital technologies make a difference in
the ways that we communicate. This claim is typically not surprising. Most
everyone in modern society recognizes the differences between communicating
via in-person speech or telephone or email. Digital rhetoric emphasizes this
difference and highlights that technologies constrain, structure, and enable speaking
in fundamentally new ways.

Digital
Theorizing digital rhetoric requires due attention to the nature of “digital” or
“digitality.” On face, the notion of digital would signal that there is some sort of
digital channel between individuals. Rather than seeing the rhetorical situation as
existing between embodied actors in spaces, a “digital” rhetoric would underscore
the channel of a rhetorical situation as being non-embodied or mediated (Gurak
and Antonijevic 2009). Indeed, much of the earliest theorizing regarding digital
rhetoric demarked digital space as a separate destination away from the “real”
world. This assumption belies a more complicated understanding of digital
rhetoric. “Digital” does not signal the absence or eschewing of “analog.” It is easy
to think of digital and analog as opposite waves of recording information, of
turning speech into “ones and zeros.” This binary misunderstanding constructs
“digital” as the addition of digital technology and a subtraction of analog,
embodied, or “real.” For example, a public protest event that includes live bodies
yelling at governmental institutions can be recorded via digital photography and
circulated across social network sites. To say that one is embodied and one is digital
misses the point. The mere presence of the digital technologies at the site of protest
alters the performance of argument from those involved (Hess forthcoming). In
this way, many rhetorical encounters are affected by the presence and use of digital
technology. The ubiquity of digital technology in a smartphone and internet of
things world means that nearly all elements of public discourse are affected by
digitality. For many, it is likely that digital technology already looks less like a
technology and more like a common feature of modern existence, much in the same
way that writing does not surface in the public mind as technology.
 Introduction 7

Rhetoric
As a study of rhetoric, digital rhetoric examines the nature of meaning-making,
identification, and persuasion, oftentimes in the context of advocacy, deliberation,
argumentation, or aesthetic performance. Rhetoric has been defined in many ways
by many individuals, but at its core, it maintains a focus on meaning-making. The
aim of rhetorical discourse might be a number of things, depending on the theorist,
including the Aristotelian notion of persuading others, identification with
audiences (Burke 1969a, 1969b), invitation of audiences (Foss and Griffin 1995), or
the promotion of ideology (Black 1978; Wander 1983; McGee 1990; McKerrow
1989). Furthermore, the expression of rhetoric can be understood in myriad ways,
whether as narrative (Fisher 1984), metaphor (Osborn 1967), expressed from
vernacular spaces (Hauser 1999; Ono and Sloop 1995), or iconographic visuals
(Hariman and Lucaites 2007), to name a mere handful. The core assumptions of
rhetoric as founded in human communication and expression, through body, word,
and media, have been maintained throughout time.
Digital rhetoric, however, changes the nature of how rhetoric is expressed. The
creation of messages is often structured by the constraints and abilities inherent
within digital technologies. Some of these constraints are quite visible, such as the
140 characters that limit a tweet. Others, such as the limits placed within the
immersive qualities of a video game, are more difficult to ascertain. Like speech
itself, these technologies differ in their creative and adaptive abilities. No two
speakers have the same vocal qualities, much like no two technologies have the
same constraints or creative possibilities. Importantly, however, digital technology,
whether through networked smartphones, computer screens, or wearable
technology, has been integrated into the everyday and common experience of
communication. Much like how Kenneth Burke positioned literature, these
technologies are a part of our daily equipment for living (Burke 1974). In this way,
they feature squarely within our fundamental abilities and assumptions regarding
communication and rhetoric. Given the ubiquity of these technologies in the
creation and circulation of rhetoric, every exchange is affected by them or their
absence. Even the choice to not use digital means to communicate has
consequences for how rhetors are perceived.
From this definition, there are a number of key themes that surface within the
study of digital rhetoric. These themes add nuance to the definition, allowing
digital rhetoric to be understood as: computational and algorithmic, ordered yet
playful, participatory and reaching, and embodied. These ideas stretch across this
volume, highlighting moments when digital rhetoric can be seen in ways that
significantly differ from traditional rhetorical theorizing.
8 Aaron Hess

Computational and Algorithmic

In response to calls to examine the mathematical and coding structure underneath
digital contexts, a variety of scholars in rhetoric and elsewhere combined
humanistic and computational understandings of digital technologies toward
fruitful and innovative analyses. Questions of algorithms, automation, interfaces,
and coding structure inquired not merely into the textual environment of digital
rhetoric. Rather, these critics realized that fluid digital texts found in Web 2.0
contexts required a nuanced understanding of how computational systems simulta-
neously enable and constrain discourse (Pfister 2014). For example, both Eli Pariser
(2011) and Siva Vaidhyanathan (2011) have expressed concern about the pervasive
media environments created by large web companies, such as Google and
Facebook, which operate as both gatekeepers and curators of knowledge,
interaction, and experience online. Fundamental to these arguments is an investi-
gation into the power and authority of algorithms in producing the user
experience, leading to what Pariser (2011) calls the “filter bubble,” which function,
as previous scholars such as Cass Sunstein (2007) have noted, like echo chambers
of political belief and opinion. Similarly, danah boyd and Kate Crawford (2012)
provide compelling reasons to explore the impact and power of “big data” upon
contemporary society. Coupled with algorithms and other automated processes,
critics have increasingly expressed concerns about the power of social media, search
engines, and other purveyors of knowledge, news stories, and opinion in forming
public opinion. As recently as the 2016 election, the use of algorithms and filter
bubbles to spread fake news has led to fresh concerns about the power of these
systems.

Ordered yet Playful

Looking beyond the computational power undergirding much of digital
technology, other theorists have connected rhetoric to more specific contexts of
digital life, such as video gaming. A relatively nascent but growing field, ludology
and game studies has been an influential force in exploring the power of rhetorical
play. From a larger humanistic perspective, scholars have recognized the immersive
power of digital games to not merely craft narratives, but also make arguments
about political and social issues (Nakamura 2009; Hess 2007; Voorhees 2009). Janet
Murray’s early work, Hamlet on the Holodeck (1997), offered a thorough
examination of the unique characteristics of play and narrative games, such as
immersion, agency, and transformation.1 According to this perspective, experi-
encing an interactive narrative as a game creates a powerful sense of involvement
for the player. In a much more thorough exploration of rhetoric and video games,
Ian Bogost’s Persuasive Games (2007) and Unit Operations (2008) make a compelling
case about the specific power of play as a part of the persuasive experience of
games. Bogost believes that the rhetorical force of games surfaces in the act of play,
whereby meaning is authored through interactive and operational form of the
 Introduction 9

game. In this sense, rhetoric is understood specifically through the computational

form authored through the coding of specific units within the game coupled with
the interactive experience internalized by the player. Much like previous
theorizing, Bogost’s conceptualization contains due attention to both the structural
form of the digital technology and the textual/interactive interpretation of it—that
is, both what’s on the screen and operating underneath it. Together, the concept of
ordered play is helpful for conceptualizing how users take up technology for
purposes of parody, remixing, or other forms of formal play.

Participatory and Reaching

Similarly, the computational power and reach of Web 2.0 structures has encouraged
scholars to explore the ways in which individuals participate, create, and spread
texts across digital spaces. Within this strand of theory is the recognition that digital
spaces and the internet have fundamentally altered the nature of production and
reception of texts. As Barbara Warnick (1998: 77) put it early on, “Everyone is a
rhetor, and everyone an audience.” Consequently, in both rhetorical circles and
elsewhere, many scholars offered concepts that collapsed the process of production
and reception, or production and usage, of digital artifacts into a singular process.
Axel Bruns (2008) called this conception “produsage,” while Henry Jenkins (2006)
reflected on the convergence of old and new media within participatory cultures.
These concepts home in on a particular shift in theory within digital rhetoric that
mirrors Burke’s shifting of rhetoric from persuasion toward practices of discursive
identification across massively networked spaces. As Gurak and Antonijevic (2009:
500) argue, “The need to persuade specific audiences becomes far less important
than the ability to reach many audiences” (emphasis added). Recognizing the shift
toward networked and shared user-generated content, rhetorical scholarship found
productive avenues in expanding vernacular rhetorical theory into digital spaces
(Ono and Sloop 2002; Howard 2008; Hess 2009), inquiring into the ways that
individual users have effectively (or not) taken up Web 2.0 tools.

Embodied
Finally, theorizing about digital technology has now recognized the changing
relationship between bodies and devices, especially since the advent of smartphone
technologies. As a “destination,” the internet was, for the end of the twentieth
century, somewhat of a portal. Computer rooms or home offices contained the
access to online spaces not only to the home, but to particular parts of the home,
in contrast to the smartphone-connected world in contemporary society in which
users can be constantly connected in remarkably remote locations (de Souza e Silva
2006; de Souza e Silva and Frith 2012). The world is at once digital and physical,
accessed through both devices and bodies. As Gurak and Antonijevic (2009: 504)
put it, “It is everything we consider rhetorical in nature. Text, sounds, visuals,
nonverbal cues, material, and virtual spaces—all these have blurred together, and all
10 Aaron Hess

are digitized.” Moreover, as wireless and cellular technologies have expanded, the
internet became something accessed from anywhere that has a signal and
connected to physical spaces. Now, mobile devices can overlay digital content upon
physical and material spaces, augmenting them with new meanings (Chess 2014).
Thus, digital content surrounds us, follows us into streets and cars, is connected to
“things,” and has created a hybrid experience of physical and digital worlds, leading
to new theorizing about the ontology of not only the user, but of the “things”—
cars, objects, and other machines—that carry live networked connections.
Moreover, the body is “digitized” or quantified in new ways as digital technologies
actively measure embodied elements, such as footsteps, heart rate, and other
physical elements of the self, providing new data points and analyses of the
everyday human body in motion.

Part and Chapter Overview

This volume is organized into three major sections, each of which builds upon the
larger arguments about the power and potential of digital technology to impact
rhetorical theory, and vice versa. To begin, Part I outlines larger philosophical and
rhetorical frames to understand digital rhetoric. Although I have offered a large,
overarching definition of digital rhetoric above, these chapters refine this work to
underscore potential avenues for how the experience of digital rhetoric can be
understood. These refinements offer much more nuanced and elaborate
conceptions of digital rhetoric. In Chapter 2, David Gunkel examines how digital
reason itself—that code of binary ones and zeroes—mirrors structural and
poststructural notions of language itself and impacts larger social and political
conversations about technology. In the same vein, Damien Smith Pfister (Chapter
3) also attends to social conversations about technology by examining how
vernacular discourses in the promotion of products supports a larger system of
technoliberalism, the tenets of which surface in social attitudes toward technology.
Both Gunkel and Pfister provide compelling takes on how the logics of digital
rhetoric and technology extend into larger social conversations.
Moving away from the language about technology and toward the experience
of technology, both Jay Brower and James P. Zappen (Chapters 4–5) provide
insights into the ontological elements of digital rhetoric. Brower looks to the
nature of the user experience through an affective lens, which accesses those
intensities and sensations that lie beneath or before language. Zappen looks to how
the current push toward the “internet of things” opens new possibilities for
understanding the relationship between discourse, materiality, and digitality. From
self-driving cars to social robots, the user experience with technology has moved
away from desktop screens and portable smartphones into the everyday objects we
use. Consequently, Zappen argues, our being in the world is impacted not only by
things, but by complex entanglements connected to things and networks that move
us in various ways. Finally for Part I, J. Macgregor Wise (Chapter 6) extends this
rhetorical vision to examine and critique the “Clickable World” as crafted for the
 Introduction 11

promotion of Google Glass, calling for an interruption of the machinic assemblage

that surrounds us.
Part II of the book outlines moments when digital technology intrudes upon
rhetorical theory. As mentioned above, rhetorical theory is fundamentally altered
when considered through digital contexts. The chapters in this section seek to
uncover and expand upon those moments when rhetorical theory benefits from
due attention to digital technology. To begin, Amber Davisson and Angela Leone
(Chapter 7) look to technological affordances as rhetorical forms, noting those
moments when structural or formal constraints within technology enable and
constrain expression or community within digital contexts. In Chapter 8, Ashley
Hinck examines the concept of fluidity and how it challenges assumptions about
identity and community. Drawing from her experience with the Harry Potter
Alliance, she articulates the concept of fluidity with group membership, noting
how fluid identities and groups can provide a catalyst for political and social action.
For Davisson and Leone as well as Hinck, the user experience of digital technology
through affordances or fluidity alters the potential and possibility of expression and
community.
Moving from the user experience and toward an “underneath the hood” view
of technology, authors in Part II also seek to understand how the computational
form of digital technology impacts rhetorical theory. Jessica Reyman (Chapter 9)
looks to the concept of agency within rhetorical theory and the ways in which it
is challenged and altered by larger algorithmic structures found online. As a
fundamental part of the web’s infrastructure, algorithms structure and hierarchize
content toward rhetorical ends. Similarly, and also attending to the infrastructure of
digitality, Candice Lanius and Gaines S. Hubbell (Chapter 10) examine the
function of “data.” Connecting data within argumentation theory to the digital
deluge of data in daily life, they contend that data acts upon the user in profound
ways. Incorporating digital data into rhetorical theory, they offer new conceptions
of kairos, invention, genre, and enthymeme.
Finally for Part II, two chapters look to the ways that identity and corporeality
can be understood through digital technology. First, Brett Lunceford (Chapter 11)
traces the longstanding question about the body in politics. By tracing
philosophical and political conversations from Descartes to Nancy Fraser,
Lunceford recovers a position on the digital body that takes into account the
constrictions of online technologies via their severing of the body, and the
enhancements potentially afforded to the body through manipulation or spread of
bodily images. In parallel fashion, in Chapter 12, Vincent Pham looks to embodied
politics through the lens of strategic essentialism. He makes the case that vernacular
discourses on the internet can mobilize through the use of identity politics and
markers of the racialized body. In both chapters, rhetorics of the body are
challenged and reworked through digital technology.
Part III of the book asks about how scholars and students of rhetoric can work
to recognize the power of digital technology in our everyday lives, particularly
through rhetorical theory and method. Opening this part, Michelle Gibbons and
12 Aaron Hess

David Seitz (Chapter 13) offer a methodological in-road through their exploration
of Twitter. Bridging ideographic criticism into the discussion of hashtagging, the
pair offer a terminological approach to studying rhetoric in social media.
Continuing the discussion of hashtags, Jennifer Reinwald in Chapter 14 examines
the circulation of #ALSIceBucketChallenge, which surfaced as a successful
campaign to promote awareness and raise funds to combat Lou Gehrig’s disease.
Framing her analysis with McLuhan’s tetrad, Reinwald provides the means for
understanding how hashtags persist and fade within public consciousness. In
Chapter 15, Jeremy David Johnson looks to how rhetorical critics can take up the
power of algorithms, especially within political circles. Crafting an “algorithmic
rhetoric,” Johnson offers critics the tools to examine the ways that rhetorical
agency can be enhanced and diminished through the programmatic power of
networked systems.
Identity and identification have been persistent concerns within rhetoric, and
the final two chapters of Part III take up two key elements of each. First, in Chapter
16, Hillary A. Jones looks to how social media encourages particular practices of
identification. Drawing from Kenneth Burke’s notion of consubstantiality and Ian
Bogost’s procedural rhetoric, Jones displays how identification is wrapped up into
sharing practices, a preference for visuality, and ways of looking. Taking up
Charland’s notion of constitutive rhetoric, Shira Chess (Chapter 17) closes this part
by examining casual mobile gaming and the ways by which these games craft and
constitute the identity of “casual gamer,” especially against larger social conceptions
of “hardcore gamer.” Together, these essays provide bold assessments about the
rhetorical nature of identity as understood through digital technologies. The
volume closes with some final thoughts from Brian L. Ott, who looks toward
future theorizing of digital rhetoric. Reflecting on the massive proliferation of
technology, Ott looks toward how production, format, and flow will continue to
impact digital rhetoric.
Overall, the contributors to this volume provide a thorough sketch of the idea
and application of digital rhetoric. Together, we aim to continue the conversation
about the power and potential of digital technologies to enrich our understanding
of rhetoric. Moreover, this volume signals the many ways that rhetorical theory can
illuminate the ways in which digital technology constrains and enables our ability
to speak and listen in a massively networked society. As technology continues to
engage our everyday existence and alter our political realities, students and scholars
of rhetoric alike must persevere in their collective critical impulse to evaluate the
social, political, and cultural impact of digital rhetoric.

Note
1 The connection between games and stories is complicated and not all theorists of
ludology agree that narrative theory is the best fit for games. For more, see Juul (2001).
 Introduction 13

References
Benson, Thomas W. 1996. “Rhetoric, Civility, and Community: Political Debate on
Computer Bulletin Boards.” Communication Quarterly 44(3): 359–378.
Black, Edwin. 1978. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Bogost, Ian. 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Bogost, Ian. 2008. Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Bolter, Jay David. 2001. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. New
York: Routledge.
boyd, danah, and Kate Crawford. 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a
Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.” Information, Communication and
Society 15(5): 662–679.
Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs,Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New
York: Peter Lang.
Burke, Kenneth. 1969a. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Burke, Kenneth. 1969b. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth. 1974. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Chess, Shira. 2014. “Augmented Regionalism: Ingress as Geomediated Gaming Narrative.”
Information, Communication and Society 17(9): 1105–1117.
de Souza e Silva, Adriana. 2006. “From Cyber to Hybrid Mobile Technologies as Interfaces
of Hybrid Spaces.” Space and Culture 9(3): 261–278.
de Souza e Silva, Adriana, and Jordan Frith. 2012. Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational
Privacy, Control, and Urban Sociability. New York: Routledge.
Eyman, Douglas. 2015. Digital Rhetoric:Theory, Method, Practice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press. (doi: 10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001)
Fisher, Walter R. 1984. “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of
Public Moral Argument.” Communications Monographs 51(1): 1–22.
Foss, Sonja K., and Cindy L. Griffin. 1995. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an
Invitational Rhetoric.” Communications Monographs 62(1): 2–18.
Gurak, Laura J. 1997. Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus
Marketplace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gurak, Laura J. 2001. Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with Awareness. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Gurak, Laura, and Smiljana Antonijevic. 2009. “Digital Rhetoric and Public Discourse.” In
The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, edited by Andrea A. Lunsford, Kurt Wilson, and
Rosa A. Eberly, 497–508. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, Stuart. 2006. “Encoding / Decoding.” In Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, edited
by Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, 163–173. Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York:
Routledge.
Hariman, Robert, and John Louis Lucaites. 2007. No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public
Culture, and Liberal Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina Press.
14 Aaron Hess

Herbig, Art, Andrew F. Herrmann, and Adam W. Tyma. 2015. Beyond New Media: Discourse
and Critique in a Polymediated Age. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Hess, Aaron. 2007. “‘You Don’t Play, You Volunteer’: Narrative Public Memory
Construction in Medal of Honor: Rising Sun.” Critical Studies in Media Communication
24(4): 339–356.
Hess, Aaron. 2009. “Resistance Up in Smoke: Analyzing the Limitations of Deliberation on
YouTube.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(5): 411–434.
Hess, Aaron. Forthcoming. “Rhetoric, Ethnography, and the Machine: Technological
Reflexivity in the Field.” In Places of Persuasion: Studying Rhetoric in the Field, edited by
Candice Rai and Caroline Druschke. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Howard, Robert Glenn. 2008. “The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media.” Critical Studies
in Media Communication 25(5): 490–513.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1988. Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political
Speechmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture:Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press.
Juul, Jesper. 2001. “Games Telling Stories.” Game Studies 1(1). Retrieved January 11, 2017
from www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Kennedy, George A. 1999. “Rhetoric and Culture/Rhetoric and Technology.” In Rhetoric, the
Polis, and the Global Village: Selected Papers from the 1998 Thirtieth Anniversary Rhetoric
Society of America Conference, edited by C. Jan Swearingen and Dave Pruett, 55–61.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Landow, George P. 1994. Hyper/Text/Theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Lanham, Richard. 1992. “Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Practice, and Property.” In Literacy
Online: The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers, edited by Myron
Tuman, 221–243. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lanham, Richard. 1993. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Losh, Elizabeth Mathews. 2009. Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-
Making in a Time of War, Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McGee, Michael Calvin. 1990. “Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary
Culture.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 54(3): 274–289. (doi: 10.1080/
10570319009374343)
McKerrow, Raymie E. 1989. “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis.” Communication
Monographs 56: 91–111. (doi: 10.1080/03637758909390253)
McKerrow, Raymie E. 2010. “Research in Rhetoric: A Glance at Our Recent Past, Present,
and Potential Future.” The Review of Communication 10(3): 197–210.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media:The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Miller, Carolyn R. 2003. “Writing in a Culture of Simulation: Ethos Online.” In Towards a
Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse, edited
by Martin Nystrand and John Duffy, 58–83. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Moulthrop, Stuart. 1994. “Rhizome and Resistance: Hypertext and the Dreams of a New
Culture.” In Hyper/Text/Theory, edited by George P. Landow, 299–319. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Murray, Janet H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck:The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
 Introduction 15

Nakamura, Lisa. 2009. “Don’t Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor
in World of Warcraft.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(2): 128–144.
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy. London: Methuen.
Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. 1995. “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse.”
Communication Monographs 62(1): 19–46. (doi: 10.1080/03637759509376346)
Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. 2002. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California’s
Proposition 187. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Osborn, Michael. 1967. “Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light Dark Family.”
Quarterly Journal of Speech 53(2): 115–126.
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read
and How We Think. New York: Penguin.
Pfister, Damien Smith. 2014. Networked Media, Networked Rhetorics: Attention and Deliberation
in the Early Blogosphere. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Silvestri, Lisa. 2013. “A Rhetorical Forecast.” Review of Communication 13(2): 127–142. (doi:
10.1080/15358593.2013.789121)
Sunstein, Cass. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2011. The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry).
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Voorhees, Gerald. 2009. “The Character of Difference: Procedurality, Rhetoric, and
Roleplaying Games.” Game Studies 9(2). Retrieved January 11, 2017 from
http://gamestudies.org/0902/articles/voorhees.
Wander, Philip. 1983. “The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism.” Central States Speech
Journal 34(1): 1–18.
Warnick, Barbara. 1998. “Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse on the Internet:
Theoretical Implications.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 28(4): 73–84.
Warnick, Barbara. 2005. “Looking to the Future: Electronic Texts and the Deepening
Interface.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14(3): 327–333.
Warnick, Barbara, and David S. Heineman. 2012. Rhetoric Online: The Politics of New Media.
New York: Peter Lang.
Welch, Kathleen E. 1999. Electric Rhetoric: Classical Rhetoric, Oralism, and a New Literacy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zappen, James P. 2005. “Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory.” Technical
Communication Quarterly 14(3): 319–325.
Introduction
Benson, Thomas W. 1996. “Rhetoric, Civility, and Community: Political Debate on Computer Bulletin Boards.” Communication Quarterly 44(3): 359–378.
Black, Edwin . 1978. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bogost, Ian . 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bogost, Ian . 2008. Unit Operations: An Approach to Videogame Criticism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolter, Jay David . 2001. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. New York: Routledge.
boyd, danah , and Kate Crawford . 2012. “Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a Cultural, Technological, and Scholarly Phenomenon.” Information, Communication and Society 15(5): 662–679.
Bruns, Axel . 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969a. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969b. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1974. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chess, Shira . 2014. “Augmented Regionalism: Ingress as Geomediated Gaming Narrative.” Information, Communication and Society 17(9): 1105–1117.
de Souza e Silva, Adriana . 2006. “From Cyber to Hybrid Mobile Technologies as Interfaces of Hybrid Spaces.” Space and Culture 9(3): 261–278.
de Souza e Silva, Adriana , and Jordan Frith . 2012. Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational Privacy, Control, and Urban Sociability. New York: Routledge.
Eyman, Douglas . 2015. Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (doi: 10.3998/dh.13030181.0001.001)
Fisher, Walter R. 1984. “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm: The Case of Public Moral Argument.” Communications Monographs 51(1): 1–22.
Foss, Sonja K. , and Cindy L. Griffin . 1995. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.” Communications Monographs 62(1): 2–18.
Gurak, Laura J. 1997. Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus Marketplace. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gurak, Laura J. 2001. Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with Awareness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gurak, Laura , and Smiljana Antonijevic . 2009. “Digital Rhetoric and Public Discourse.” In The Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, edited by Andrea A. Lunsford , Kurt Wilson , and Rosa A. Eberly , 497–508. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, Stuart . 2006. “Encoding / Decoding.” In Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks, edited by Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner , 163–173. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
Hariman, Robert , and John Louis Lucaites . 2007. No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Herbig, Art , Andrew F. Herrmann , and Adam W. Tyma . 2015. Beyond New Media: Discourse and Critique in a Polymediated Age. Lanham, MD: Lexington.
Hess, Aaron . 2007. “‘You Don't Play, You Volunteer’: Narrative Public Memory Construction in Medal of Honor: Rising Sun.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 24(4): 339–356.
Hess, Aaron . 2009. “Resistance Up in Smoke: Analyzing the Limitations of Deliberation on YouTube.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(5): 411–434.
Hess, Aaron . Forthcoming. “Rhetoric, Ethnography, and the Machine: Technological Reflexivity in the Field.” In Places of Persuasion: Studying Rhetoric in the Field, edited by Candice Rai and Caroline Druschke . Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Howard, Robert Glenn . 2008. “The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 25(5): 490–513.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall . 1988. Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Henry . 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press.
Juul, Jesper . 2001. “Games Telling Stories.” Game Studies 1(1). Retrieved January 11, 2017 from www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Kennedy, George A. 1999. “Rhetoric and Culture/Rhetoric and Technology.” In Rhetoric, the Polis, and the Global Village: Selected Papers from the 1998 Thirtieth Anniversary Rhetoric Society of America Conference, edited by C. Jan Swearingen and Dave Pruett , 55–61. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Landow, George P. 1994. Hyper/Text/Theory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lanham, Richard . 1992. “Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Practice, and Property.” In Literacy Online: The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers, edited by Myron Tuman , 221–243. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lanham, Richard . 1993. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Losh, Elizabeth Mathews . 2009. Virtualpolitik: An Electronic History of Government Media-Making in a Time of War, Scandal, Disaster, Miscommunication, and Mistakes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manovich, Lev . 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McGee, Michael Calvin . 1990. “Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 54(3): 274–289. (doi: 10.1080/10570319009374343)
McKerrow, Raymie E. 1989. “Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis.” Communication Monographs 56: 91–111. (doi: 10.1080/03637758909390253)
McKerrow, Raymie E. 2010. “Research in Rhetoric: A Glance at Our Recent Past, Present, and Potential Future.” The Review of Communication 10(3): 197–210.
McLuhan, Marshall . 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, Carolyn R. 2003. “Writing in a Culture of Simulation: Ethos Online.” In Towards a Rhetoric of Everyday Life: New Directions in Research on Writing, Text, and Discourse, edited by Martin Nystrand and John Duffy , 58–83. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Moulthrop, Stuart . 1994. “Rhizome and Resistance: Hypertext and the Dreams of a New Culture.” In Hyper/Text/Theory, edited by George P. Landow , 299–319. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Murray, Janet H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Nakamura, Lisa . 2009. “Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft .” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(2): 128–144.
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy. London: Methuen.
Ono, Kent A. , and John M. Sloop . 1995. “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse.” Communication Monographs 62(1): 19–46. (doi: 10.1080/03637759509376346)
Ono, Kent A. , and John M. Sloop. 2002. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration, and California's Proposition 187. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Osborn, Michael . 1967. “Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light Dark Family.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 53(2): 115–126.
Pariser, Eli . 2011. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin.
Pfister, Damien Smith . 2014. Networked Media, Networked Rhetorics: Attention and Deliberation in the Early Blogosphere. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.
Silvestri, Lisa . 2013. “A Rhetorical Forecast.” Review of Communication 13(2): 127–142. (doi: 10.1080/15358593.2013.789121)
Sunstein, Cass . 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva . 2011. The Googlization of Everything (and Why We Should Worry). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Voorhees, Gerald . 2009. “The Character of Difference: Procedurality, Rhetoric, and Roleplaying Games.” Game Studies 9(2). Retrieved January 11, 2017 from http://gamestudies.org/0902/articles/voorhees.
Wander, Philip . 1983. “The Ideological Turn in Modern Criticism.” Central States Speech Journal 34(1): 1–18.
Warnick, Barbara . 1998. “Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse on the Internet: Theoretical Implications.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 28(4): 73–84.
Warnick, Barbara . 2005. “Looking to the Future: Electronic Texts and the Deepening Interface.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14(3): 327–333.
Warnick, Barbara , and David S. Heineman . 2012. Rhetoric Online: The Politics of New Media. New York: Peter Lang.
Welch, Kathleen E. 1999. Electric Rhetoric: Classical Rhetoric, Oralism, and a New Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zappen, James P. 2005. “Digital Rhetoric: Toward an Integrated Theory.” Technical Communication Quarterly 14(3): 319–325.

Critique of Digital Reason

Abel, Robert . 2016. “Update: Prepare for Trouble: Pokemon Go Sparks Privacy Issues, Malware and Muggings.” SC Magazine (12 July). Retrieved from www.scmagazine.com/pokemon-goes-wrong-with-malware-and-armed-muggings/article/508755.
Baudrillard, Jean . 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bolter, Jay David . 2001. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Calcutt, Andrew . 1998. White Noise: An A-Z of the Contradictions in Cyberculture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chandler, Daniel . 2002. Semiotics: The Basics. New York: Routledge.
Clynes, Manfred E. , and Nathan S. Kline . 1960. “Cyborgs and Space.” Astronautics. (Reprinted in The Cyborg Handbook, edited by Chris Hables Gray , New York: Routledge, 1995.)
Culler, Jonathan . 1982. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles . 1994. Difference and Repetition. Translated by Paul Patton . New York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, Jacques . 1976. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, Jacques . 1981. Positions. Translated and annotated by Alan Bass . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, Jacques . 1993. Limited Inc. Translated by Samuel Weber . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Derrida, Jacques . 2005. Paper Machine. Translated by Rachel Bowlby . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Elbow, Peter . 1993. “The Uses of Binary Thinking.” JAC 13(1): 51–78. Retrieved from www.jaconlinejournal.com/archives/vol13.1/elbow-uses.pdf.
Ellis, John M. 1990. Against Deconstruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Greene, Brian . 2005. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. New York: Vintage Books.
Gunkel, David J. 2001. Hacking Cyberspace. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gunkel, David J. 2007. Thinking Otherwise: Philosophy, Communication, Technology. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Gunkel, David J. 2012. The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots and Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.
Hegel, G. W. F. 1989. Hegel's Science of Logic. Translated by A. V. Miller . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International.
Heim, Michael . 1998. Virtual Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Landow, George P. 1992. Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Levinas, Emmanuel . 1987. Collected Philosophical Papers. Trans. Alphonso Lingis . Dordrecht, Netherlands: Martin Nijhoff Publishers.
Ong, Walter . 1995. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Routledge.
Patton, Paul . 1994. “Translator's Preface.” In Gilles Deleuze , Difference and Repetition, xi–xiii. New York: Columbia University Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de . 1959. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Wade Baskin . London: Peter Owen.
Stanovsky, Derek . 2004. “Virtual Reality.” In The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, edited by Luciano Floridi , 167–177. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stich, Stephen P. 1998. Deconstructing the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, Mark . 1997. Hiding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Mark . 1999. About Religion: Economies of Faith in Virtual Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995. Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the “Have Nots” in Rural and Urban America. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1998. Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Washington, DC: NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Weinman, Lynda . 1996. Deconstructing Web Graphics. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Wikipedia. 2016. “Structuralism.” Retrieved September 8, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism.

The Terms of Technoliberalism

Bollmer, Grant . 2016. Inhuman Networks: Social Media and the Archaeology of Connection. New York: Bloomsbury.
Bower, Joseph L. , and Clayton M. Christensen . 1995. “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave.” Harvard Business Review (January–February): 43–53.
Brown, Wendy . 2015. “What Exactly is Neoliberalism?” Dissent (April 2). Retrieved from www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/booked-3-what-exactly-is-neoliberalism-wendy-brown-undoing-the-demos.
Ewalt, Joshua P. , Jessy J. Ohl , and Damien Smith Pfister . 2013. “Activism, Deliberation, and Networked Public Screens: Rhetorical Scenes from Occupy Lincoln (Part 1 & 2).” Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 13(3): 173–190.
Ewalt, Joshua P. , Jessy J. Ohl , and Damien Smith Pfister . 2016. “Rhetorical Field Methods in the Tradition of Imitatio .” In Text + Field: Innovations in Rhetorical Method, edited by Sara L. MacKinnon , Robert Asen , Karma R. Chávez , and Robert Glenn Howard , 40–55. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Universityx.
Harvey, David . 2006. “Neo-liberalism as Creative Destruction.” Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 88(2): 145–158.
Hess, Aaron . 2011. “Critical-Rhetorical Ethnography: Rethinking the Place and Process of Rhetoric.” Journal of Communication Studies 62(2): 127–152.
Kaplan, Michael . 2010. Friendship Fictions: The Rhetoric of Citizenship in the Liberal Imaginary. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Karpf, David . 2012. The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political Advocacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lepore, Jill . 2014. “The Disruption Machine: What the Gospel of Innovation Gets Wrong.” The New Yorker (June 23). Retrieved from www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine.
Malaby, Thomas . 2009. Making Virtual Worlds: Linden Lab and Second Life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Middleton, Michael K. , Aaron Hess , Danielle Endres , and Samantha Senda-Cook . 2015. Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric In Situ. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Middleton, Michael K. , Samantha Senda-Cook , and Danielle Endres . 2011. “Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods: Challenges and Tensions.” Western Journal of Communication 75(4): 386–406.
Mill, John Stuart . 1978 [1859]. On Liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
Nunes, Paul , and Larry Downes . 2016. “The Five Most Disruptive Innovations at CES.” Forbes (January 8). Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/bigbangdisruption/2016/01/08/the-five-most-disruptive-innovations-at-ces-2016/#791d015513aa.
Nguyen, Kim Hong , ed. 2016. Rhetoric in Neoliberalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Oldenziel, Ruth . 2004. Making Technology Masculine: Men, Women, and Machines in America, 1870–1945. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Schram, Sanford F. 2015. The Return of Ordinary Capitalism: Neoliberalism, Precarity, and Occupy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Springer, Simon , Kean Birch , and Julie MacLeavy , eds. 2016. The Handbook of Neoliberalism. New York: Routledge.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva . 2015. “Has Innovation Supplanted the Idea of Progress?” Aeon (May 13). Retrieved from https://aeon.co/conversations/why-has-innovation-supplanted-the-idea-of-progress.

Rhetorical Affects in Digital Media

Ahmed, Sara . 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York: Routledge.
Benjamin, Walter . 1968 [1936]. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations: Essays and Reflections, edited by Hannah Arendt , translated by Harry Zohn , 217–251. New York: Schocken.
Brennan, Teresa . 2004. The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Caput, Catherine . 2010. “Rhetorical Circulation in Late Capitalism: Neoliberalism and the Overdetermination of Affective Energy.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43(1): 1–25. (doi: 10.1353/par.0.0047)
Coté, Mark . 2010. “Technics and the Human Sensorium: Rethinking Media Theory through the Body.” Theory and Event 13(4). Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/article/407142.
Edbauer Rice, J. 2008. “The New New: Making the Case for Critical Affect Studies.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 94(2): 200–212. (doi: 10.1080/00335630801975434)
Hansen, Mark B. N. 2004. New Philosophy for New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Krauss, Rosalind . 1999. “Reinventing the Medium.” Critical Inquiry 25(2): 289–305.
Krauss, Rosalind . 2006. “Two Moments from the Post Medium Condition.” October 116: 55–62. (doi:10.1162/octo.2006.116.1.55)
Leaver, Tama . 2012. Artificial Culture: Identity, Technology, and Politics. New York: Routledge.
Massumi, Brian . 2002. Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Massumi, Brian . 2011. Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Morey, Sean . 2016. Rhetorical Delivery and Digital Technologies: Networks, Affect, and Electracy. New York: Routledge.
Rand, Erin J. 2015. “Bad Feelings in Public: Rhetoric, Affect, Emotion.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 18(1): 161–175.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky . 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy and Performativity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Seigworth, Gregory J. , and Melissa Gregg . 2010. “An Inventory of Shimmers.” In The Affect Theory Reader, edited by Melissa Gregg and Gregory J. Seigworth , 1–25. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Wegenstein, Bernadette . 2006. Getting under the Skin: The Body in Media Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wegenstein, Bernadette . 2011. “The Medium is the Body: Computer-Animated Architecture and Media Art.” In Intermedialities: Philosophy, Arts, Politics, edited by Henk Oosterling and Ewa Plonowska Ziarek , 87–98. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Whitehead, Alfred North . 1978 [1929]. Process and Reality. New York: Free Press.
Digital Rhetoric and the Internet of Things
Bajarin, Tim . 2014. “The Next Big Thing for Tech: The Internet of Everything.” Time (January 23). Retrieved from http://time.com/539/the-next-big-thing-for-tech-the-internet-of-everything.
Barad, Karen . 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Bohr, Niels . 1987 [1927]. “The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory.” In The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, Vol. 1: Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, 52–91. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.
Brown, James J., Jr. 2015. Ethical Programs: Hospitality and the Rhetorics of Software. Digital Humanities . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969a [1945]. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969b [1950]. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1984 [1937]. Attitudes Toward History. 3rd edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burrus, Daniel . Undated. “The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger than Anyone Realizes.” Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/the-internet-of-things-bigger.
Ciobanu, Elizabeth . 2016. “DataFromSky Offers Traffic Analysis of Aerial Video Data.” Droneblog (April 5). Retrieved from http://droneblog.com/2016/04/05/datafromsky-offers-traffic-analysis-of-aerial-video-data.
Darling, Kate . 2012. “Extending Legal Protection to Social Robots.” IEEE Spectrum (September 10). Retrieved from http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/extending-legal-protection-to-social-robots.
de Souza e Silva, Adriana , and Jordan Frith . 2012. Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational Privacy, Control, and Urban Sociability. New York: Routledge.
Eddington, A[rthur] S[tanley] . 1929. The Nature of the Physical World. New York: Macmillan.
Einstein, Albert , and Leopold Infeld . 1938. The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Einstein, A[lbert] , B[oris] Podolsky , and N[athan] Rosen . 1935. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47 (May 15): 777–780.
Fox-Brewster, Thomas . 2015. “Cracking Dildos and Dollies: Hackers Expose Vulnerabilities in Connected Toys.” Forbes (January 30). Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/thomas-brewster/2015/01/30/adult-and-kids-toys-get-penetration-tests.
Fultner, Barbara . 2013. “Heidegger's Pragmatic-Existential Theory of Language and Assertion.” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger's Being and Time , edited by Mark A. Wrathall , 201–222. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Geer, David . 2015. “The Internet of Robotic Things: Secure, Harmless Helpers or Vulnerable, Vicious Foes?” CSO (January 23). Retrieved from www.csoonline.com/article/2872643/mobile-security/the-internet-of-robotic-things-secure-harmless-helpers-or-vulnerable-vicious-foes.html.
Grauer, Yael . 2015. “ CSI: Cyber Somehow Didn't Get Car Hacking Totally Wrong.” Wired (November 13). Retrieved from www.wired.com/2015/11/csi-cyber-somehow-didnt-get-car-hacking-totally-wrong.
Heidegger, Martin . 1967 [1935–1936]. What Is a Thing? Translated by W. B. Barton, Jr. and Vera Deutsch . Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery.
Heidegger, Martin . 2008 [1935]. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson . New York: HarperCollins.
Johnson, Adam . 2015. “Nirvana.” In Fortune Smiles: Stories, 3–38. New York: Penguin.
Knight, Will . 2015. “How to Help Self-Driving Cars Make Ethical Decisions.” MIT Technology Review (July 29). Retrieved from www.technologyreview.com/s/539731/how-to-help-self-driving-cars-make-ethical-decisions.
Kumar, Mohit . 2015. “How Drones Can Find and Hack Internet-of-Things Devices from the Sky.” The Hacker News (August 7). Retrieved from http://thehackernews.com/2015/08/hacking-internet-of-things-drone.html.
Latour, Bruno . 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Levy, David . 2008. Love + Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human–Robot Relationships. New York: HarperCollins.
Luleå University of Technology. 2011. “The Intelligent Traffic Circle” (September 8). Retrieved from www.ltu.se/ltu/media/news/Den-intelligenta-rondellen-1.82823?l=en.
Miller, Carolyn R. 2007. “What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37(2): 137–157.
Nagesh, Ashitha . 2015. “A Junction with 42 Traffic Lights Actually Works Better Now They've All Broken Down.” Metro (October 8). Retrieved from http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/08/a-junction-with-42-traffic-lights-actually-works-better-now-theyve-all-broken-down-5428575.
Norman, Donald A. 2007. The Design of Future Things. New York: Basic Books.
O'Reilly, Tim . 2014. “#IoTH: The Internet of Things and Humans.” O'Reilly Media (April 16). Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/ioth-the-internet-of-things-and-humans.html.
Postscapes. Undated. “Physical Web Overview: Google's ‘Physical Web’ Suggests URLs, Not Apps, Are the Future of the Internet of Things.” Retrieved from www.postscapes.com/googles-physical-web-suggests-urls-not-apps-are-the-future-of-the-internet-of-things.
Rice, Jeff . 2012. Digital Detroit: Rhetoric and Space in the Age of the Network. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rickert, Thomas . 2013. Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Samuely, Alex . 2016. “How Car-Related IoT Data Will Transform the Automotive and Insurance Industries.” Mobile Marketer (March 10). Retrieved from www.mobile-marketer.com/cms/news/software-technology/22411.html.
Snow, Colin . Undated. “Why Drones Are the Future of the Internet of Things.” Drone Analyst. Retrieved from http://droneanalyst.com/2014/12/01/drones-are-the-future-of-iot.
Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob . 2006. “‘How's My Driving’ for Everyone (and Everything?).” New York University Law Review 81 (November): 1699–1765.
Tobe, Frank . 2015. “2016 Will Be a Pivotal Year for Social Robots.” The Robot Report (December 13). Retrieved from www.therobotreport.com/news/2016-will-be-a-big-year-for-social-robots.
Turkle, Sherry . 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
Weiser, M. Elizabeth . 2008. Burke, War, Words: Rhetoricizing Dramatism. Studies in Rhetoric/Communication . Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Wilkins, Dean , and Richard Moriarty . 2015. “Traffic Blights: Roundabout Has 42 Sets in £22m Revamp.” The Sun (August 25). Retrieved from www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6606358/Tragic-roundabout-Drivers-see-red-at-43-traffic-lights.html.
Wrathall, Mark A. 2011. Heidegger and Unconcealment: Truth, Language, and History. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wrathall, Mark A. , and Max Murphey . 2013. “An Overview of Being and Time .” In The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger's Being and Time , edited by Mark A. Wrathall , 1–53. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zappen, James P. 2009. “Kenneth Burke on Dialectical-Rhetorical Transcendence.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(3): 279–301.
Zittrain, Jonathan . 2008. The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Zoroya, Gregg . 2016. “Pentagon Report Justifies Deployment of Military Spy Drones over the U.S.” USA Today (March 9). Retrieved from www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/09/pentagon-admits-has-deployed-military-spy-drones-over-us/81474702.

Towards a Minor Assemblage

Arendt, Hannah 1971. “Thinking and Moral Considerations: A Lecture.” Social Research 38(3): 417–446.
Bamford, James . 2012. “The NSA is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say).” Wired (15 March). Retrieved from www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter.
Bell, Gordon , and Jim Gemmell . 2009. Total Recall: How the E-Memory Revolution Will Change Everything. New York: Dutton.
Bilton, Ian . 2015. “Why Google Glass Broke.” New York Times (4 February). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/style/why-google-glass-broke.html?_r=0.
Bogue, Ronald . 2011. “The Minor.” In Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts, edited by Charles Stivale , 131–141. Chesham: Acumen.
Bolter, Jay , and Richard Grusin . 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bormann, Ernest . 1972. “Fantasy and Rhetorical Vision: The Rhetorical Criticism of Social Reality.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58(4): 396–407.
Brin, Sergei . 2013. “Why Google Glass?” TED Talks. Retrieved from www.ted.com/talks/sergey_brin_why_google_glass.
Buchanan, Ian . 2015. “Assemblage Theory and its Discontents.” Deleuze Studies 9(3): 382–392.
Carr, Austin . 2012. “Google's Project Glass: Inside the Problem Solving and Prototyping.” Fast Company. Retrieved from www.fastcodesign.com/1669937/googles-project-glass-inside-the-problem-solving-and-prototyping.
Claburn, Thomas . 2012. “7 Potential Problems with Google's Glasses.” Informationweek (February 12). Retrieved from www.informationweek.com/mobile/7-potential-problems-with-googles-glasses/d/d-id/1102969?.
Coyne, Richard . 2010. The Tuning of Place: Sociable Spaces and Pervasive Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deleuze, Gilles . 1995. Negotiations 1972–1990. Translated by Martin Joughin . New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles , and Felix Guattari . 1986. Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Translated by Dana Polan . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze, Gilles , and Felix Guattari . 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Douthat, Ross . 2012. “The Man with the Google Glasses.” The New York Times (April 14). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-man-with-the-google-glasses.html.
Foucault, Michel . 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (trans. Alan Sheridan ). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Foucault, Michel . 1990. The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction (trans. Robert Hurley ). New York: Vintage Books.
Fox, Susannah and Maeve Duggan . 2013. “Tracking for Health.” Pew Resarch Center. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/28/tracking-for-health.
Greenfield, Adam . 2006. Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Kember, Sarah . 2016. iMedia: The Gendering of Objects, Environments, and Smart Materials. New York: Palgrave.
Lazzarrato, Maurizio . 2006. “The Concepts of Life and the Living in Societies of Control.” In Deleuze and the Social, edited by Martin Fuglsang and Bent Meier Sorensen , 171–190. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Lupton, Deborah . 2016. The Quantified Self. Malden, MA: Polity.
Lyon, David . 2001. Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Lyon, David . 2015. Surveillance After Snowden. Malden, MA: Polity.
McCullough, Malcolm . 2004. Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mosco, Vincent . 2014. To the Cloud: Big Data in a Turbulent World. New York: Routledge.
Neff, Gina , and Dawn Nafus . 2016. Self-Tracking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rheingold, Howard . 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. New York: Basic Books.
Richtel, Matt . 2010. “Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime.” The New York Times (24 August). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/technology/25brain.html.
Shirky, Clay . 2009. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin.
Turkle, Sherry . 2012. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
Villasenor, John . 2011. “Recording Everything: Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Governments.” Brookings (December 14). Retrieved from www.brookings.edu/research/recording-everything-digital-storage-as-an-enabler-of-authoritarian-governments.
Virilio, Paul . 2000. The Information Bomb. (trans. Chris Turner ). Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
Weiser, Mark . 1991. “The Computer for the 21st Century.” Scientific American 265: 91–104.
Wise, J. Macgregor . 1997. Exploring Technology and Social Space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wise, J. Macgregor . 2002. “Mapping the Culture of Control: Seeing Through the Truman Show.” Television and New Media 3(1): 29–47.
Wise, J. Macgregor . 2011a. “Assemblage.” In Gilles Deleuze: Key Concepts, edited by Charles Stivale , 91–102. Chesham: Acumen.
Wise, J. Macgregor . 2011b. “Attention and Assemblage in the Clickable World.” In Communication Matters: Materialist Approaches to Media, Mobility, and Networks, edited by Jeremy Packer and Stephen B. Crofts Wiley , 159–172. New York: Routledge.
Wise, J. Macgregor . 2013. “Re-Framing Google Glass.” Flow. Retrieved from www.flowjournal.org/2013/04/re-framing-google-glass.
Wolf, Gary . 2009. “Know Thyself: Tracking Every Facet of Life, From Sleep to Mood to Pain, 24/7/365.” Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2009/06/lbnp-knowthyself.
Wolf, Gary . 2010. “The Data-Driven Life.” The New York Times (April 28). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/magazine/02self-measurement-t.html.

From Coercion to Community Building

Benkler, Yochai . 2013. “Freedom in Systems.” Harvard Law Review 127: 351–356.
boyd, danah . 2006. “Friends, Friendsters, and MySpace Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites.” First Monday 11(12).
boyd, danah . 2010. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, edited by Zizi Papacharissi , 39–58. New York: Routledge.
Brockriede, Wayne . 1972. “Arguers as Lovers.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 5(1): 1–11.
Burke, Kenneth . 1951. A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice Hall.
Butler, Judith . 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith . 1999. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, David . 2014. “Facebook Apologizes to LGBT Community for Real-Name Controversy, Vows Changes.” Adweek (October 1). Retrieved from www.adweek.com/socialtimes/chris-cox-apology-lgbt-drag-queens-real-names/438135.
Davisson, Amber . 2016. “The Politics of Authenticity in Facebook's Name Policy.” In Social Media and Politics: A New Way to Participate in the Political Process, Vol. 2, edited by Glen Richards , 97–114. New York: Praeger.
Dow, Bonnie J. , and Mari Boor Tonn . 1993. “‘Feminine Style’ and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 79(3): 286–302.
Edbauer, Jenny . 2005. “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 5–24.
Foss, Sonja K. , and Cindy L. Griffin . 1995. “Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric.” Communication Monographs 62(1): 2–18.
Gibson, James J. 2014 [1979]. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition. Brighton: Psychology Press.
Gillespie, Tarleton . 2007. Wired Shut. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hill, Dana Lone . 2015. “Facebook Don't Believe in Indian Names.” Last Real Indians (blog). Retrieved on July 2, 2015 from http://lastrealindians.com/facebook-dont-believe-in-indian-names-by-dana-lone-hill.
Holpuch, Amanda . 2015. “Facebook Still Suspending Native Americans Over ‘Real Name’ Policy.” The Guardian (February 16). Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/16/facebook-real-name-policy-suspends-native-americans.
Kirkpatrick, David . 2010. The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company that is Connecting the World. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Koleszar, Eris . 2016. “#SHEBELONGS.” Original Plumbing 18: 26.
Kuo, Feng-Yang , Chih-Yi Tseng , Fan-Chuan Tseng , and Cathy S. Lin . 2013. “A Study of Social Information Control Affordances and Gender Difference in Facebook Self-Presentation.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16(9): 635–644.
Lessig, Lawrence . 2008. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
McKernan, Bethan . 2015. “A Journalist Who Used a Pseudonym to Avoid Rape and Death Threats has Been Kicked Off Facebook.” i100 (June 24). Retrieved from http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/a-journalist-who-used-a-pseudonym-to-avoid-rape-and-death-threats-has-been-kicked-off-facebook—bJZmbd2b1Me.
Meagher, Benjamin R. , and Jessica J. Kang . 2013. “Gender Identification as a Constraint on Detecting Multiple Affordances.” Studies in Perception and Action 11: 106–109.
Miller, Carolyn R. , and Dawn Shepherd . 2009. “Questions for Genre Theory from the Blogosphere.” In Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre, edited by Janet Giltrow and Dieter Stein , 263–290. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
Mitchell, William J. 1995. City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nemeth, Karen . 2015. “My Name is Only Real Enough to Work at Facebook, Not to Use on the Site.” The Medium (June 27). Retrieved from https://medium.com/@zip/my-name-is-only-real-enough-to-work-at-facebook-not-to-use-on-the-site-c37daf3f4b03.
Ong, Walter J. 2013. Orality and Literacy. New York: Routledge.
Phillip, Abby . 2015. “Online ‘Authenticity’ and How Facebook's ‘Real Name’ Policy Hurts Native Americans.” Washington Post (February 10). Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/10/online-authenticity-and-how-facebooks-real-name-policy-hurts-native-americans.
Phillips, Whitney . 2015. This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Safronova, Valeriya . 2014. “Drag Performers Fight Facebook's ‘Real Name’ Policy.” The New York Times (September 24). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/fashion/drag-performers-fight-facebooks-real-name-policy.html?_r=1.
Saussure, Ferdinand de , Wade Baskin , and Perry Meisel . 2011. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, Gene . 2004. “Atomiq: Folksonomy: Social Classification.” Dostopno na. Retrieved from http://atomiq.org/archives/2004/08/folksonomy_social_classification.
Spade, Dean . 2016. “The Bathroom Issue.” Original Plumbing 18: 20–25.
Ye, Lin , Wilson Cardwell , and Leonard S. Mark . 2009. “Perceiving Multiple Affordances for Objects.” Ecological Psychology 21(3): 185–217.

Fluidity in a Digital World

Abbate, Janet . 1999. Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ammerman, Nancy T. 1997. “1996 Presidential Address: Organized Religion in a Voluntaristic Society.” Sociology of Religion 58(3): 203–215.
Asen, Rob . 2004. “A Discourse Theory of Citizenship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 90(2): 189–211.
Bauman, Zygmunt . 2000. Liquid Modernity. Malden, MA: Polity.
Bauman, Zygmunt . 2007. Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Malden, MA: Polity.
Baym, Nancy . 2000. Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beck, Ulrich . 2009. World At Risk. Malden, MA: Polity.
Beck, Ulrich . 2010. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Bennett, Lance . 2008. “Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age.” In Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, edited by Lance Bennett , 1–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bennett, Lance . 2011. “Political Life in Late Modern Society: Communication, Citizenship, and Participation in a Time of Institutional Decline.” Presented at Communication, Consumers, and Citizens: Revisiting the Politics of Consumption, University of Wisconsin-Madison, March 4.
Bennett, Lance , and Alexandra Segerberg . 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bitzer, Lloyd . 1978. “Rhetoric and Public Knowledge.” In Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Literature: An Exploration, edited by Don M. Burks , 67–94. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Brooks, Maegan Parker . 2016. A Voice That Could Stir an Army: Fannie Lou Hamer and the Rhetoric of the Black Freedom Movement. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
Calloway-Thomas, Carolyn , and John Louis Lucaites . 2005. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Sermonic Power of Public Discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Chávez, Karma . 2010. “Border (in)securities: Normative and Differential Belonging in LGBTQ and Immigrant Rights Discourse.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 7(2): 136–155. (doi: 10.1080/14791421003763291)
Coleman, Stephen . 2008. “Doing IT for Themselves: Management versus Autonomy in Youth E-Citizenship.” In Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, edited by Lance Bennett , 189–206. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Couldry, Nick . 2010. Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dahlgren, Peter . 2009. Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. Communication, Society and Politics . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Edbauer, Jenny . 2005. “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 5–24.
Edge, Abigail , and David Adam . 2009. “Q&A: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009.” The Guardian (May 1). Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/01/q-and-a-copenhagen-summit.
Eiesland, Nancy L. 2000. A Particular Place: Urban Restructuring and Religious Ecology in a Southern Exurb. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Finke, Roger , and Rodney Stark . 1988. “Religious Economies and Sacred Canopies: Religious Mobilization in American Cities, 1906.” American Sociological Review 53(1): 41–49.
Giddens, Anthony . 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giroux, Henry . 2011. “The New Crisis of Public Values in the Age of New Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 28(1): 8–29.
Goodnight, G. Thomas . 1982. “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument.” Argumentation and Advocacy 18: 214–227.
Green, John . 2015. How to Give Away over a Million Dollars. VlogBrothers. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Cd5aRU68M.
Hariman, Robert , and John Louis Lucaites . 2011. No Caption Needed: Iconic Photographs, Public Culture, and Liberal Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hauser, Gerald A. 1991. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Hinck, Ashley . 2012. “Theorizing a Public Engagement Keystone: Seeing Fandom's Integral Connection to Civic Engagement through the Case of the Harry Potter Alliance.” Transformative Works and Cultures 10. (doi: 10.3983/twc.2012.0311)
Hinck, Ashley . 2015. “Fan-Based Performances of Citizenship: Fandom, Public Engagement, and Politics.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Hinck, Ashley . 2016. “Ethical Frameworks and Ethical Modalities: Theorizing Communication and Citizenship in a Fluid World.” Communication Theory 26(1): 1–20.
Houck, Davis W. , and David E. Dixon , eds. 2006. Rhetoric, Religion and the Civil Rights Movement, 1954–1965. Studies in Rhetoric and Religion, vol. 1. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Howard, Philip . 2006. New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Howard, Robert Glenn . 2008. “Electronic Hybridity: The Persistent Processes of the Vernacular Web.” Journal of American Folklore 121(480): 192–218. (doi: 10.1353/jaf.0.0012)
Howard, Robert Glenn . 2011. Digital Jesus: The Making of a New Christian Fundamentalist Community on the Internet. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins, Henry , Sangita Shresthova , Liana Gamber-Thompson , Neta Kligler-Vilenchik , and Arely Zimmerman . 2016. By Any Media Necessary: The New Youth Activism. Connected Youth and Digital Futures . New York: New York University Press.
Johnson, Davi . 2007. “Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 Birmingham Campaign as Image Event.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 10(1): 1–26.
Keohane, Jennifer . 2016. “‘Honest Toil’: Labor, the Body, and Citizenship in the Knights of Labor, 1880–1890.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 46(1): 66–88.
Kligler-Vilenchik, Neta . 2013. “Decreasing World Suck”: Fan Communities, Mechanisms of Translation, and Participatory Politics. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California's Media Activism, and Participatory Politics Project. Retrieved from http://dmlhub.net/sites/default/files/Decreasing%20World%20Suck%20-
%20Working%20Paper%20-%20MAPP%20-%20June%2025%202013.pdf.
Kligler-Vilenchik, Neta , Joshua McVeigh-Schultz , Christine Weitbrecht , and Chris Tokuhama . 2012. “Experiencing Fan Activism: Understanding the Power of Fan Activist Organizations through Members' Narratives.” Transformative Works and Cultures 10. (doi: 10.3983/twc.2012.0322)
Land, Kenneth C. , Glenn Deane , and Judith R. Blau . 1991. “Religious Pluralism and Church Membership: A Spatial Diffusion Model.” American Sociological Review 56(2): 237–249.
Lucas, Stephen E. 1980. “Coming to Terms with Movement Studies.” Central States Speech Journal 31(4): 255–266. (doi: 10.1080/10510978009368065)
McKinnon, Sara L. , Robert Asen , Karma R. Chávez , and Robert Glenn Howard , eds. 2016. Text + Field: Innovations in Rhetorical Method. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Middleton, Michael , Aaron Hess , Danielle Ens , and Samantha Senda-Cook . 2015. Participatory Critical Rhetoric: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations for Studying Rhetoric In Situ . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Middleton, Michael K. , Samantha Senda-Cook , and Danielle Endres . 2011. “Articulating Rhetorical Field Methods: Challenges and Tensions.” Western Journal of Communication 75(4): 386–406. (doi: 10.1080/10570314.2011.586969)
Papacharissi, Zizi . 2010. A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Malden, MA: Polity.
PotterCast. 2007. “Harry Potter Fans for Darfur.” Podcast . PotterCast. Retrieved from www.pottercast.com/special-edition-becoming-dumbledores-army-harry-potter-fans-for-darfur.
Putnam, Robert . 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rheingold, Howard . 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roof, Wade Clark . 1993. A Generation of Seekers: The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Selby, Gary S. 2008. Martin Luther King and the Rhetoric of Freedom: The Exodus Narrative in America's Struggle for Civil Rights. Studies in Rhetoric and Religion, vol. 5. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Silvestri, Lisa . 2013. “A Rhetorical Forecast.” Review of Communication 13(2): 127–142. (doi: 10.1080/15358593.2013.789121)
Silvestri, Lisa . 2016. “Context Drives Method: Studying Social Media Use in a War Zone.” In Text + Field: Innovations in Rhetorical Method, edited by Sara L. McKinnon , Robert Asen , Karma R. Chávez , and Robert Glenn Howard , 163–176. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Skocpol, Theda . 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Song, Felicia Wu . 2009. Virtual Communities: Bowling Alone, Online Together. Digital Formations, vol. 54. New York: Peter Lang.
TeamMates. 2012. “Chad Kelsay Video.” Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/104645158.
Verba, Sidney , Kay Lehman Schlozman , and Henry Brady . 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warner, Michael . 2002. Publics and Counterpublics. Brooklyn, NY: Zone Books.
Warner, R. Stephen . 1993. “Work in Progress toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States.” The American Journal of Sociology 98(5): 1044–1093.
Zaeske, Susan . 2003. Signatures of Citizenship. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

The Rhetorical Agency of Algorithms

adstads. 2015. “Update on Tags.” Flickr. Retrieved from www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/72157652019487118/page9.
Baker, Paul and Amanda Potts . 2013. “Why Do White People Have Thin Lips? Google and the Perpetuation of Stereotypes, Via Auto-complete Search Forms.” Critical Discourse Studies 10(2): 187–204.
Barr, Alistair . 2015. “Google Mistakenly Tags Black People as ‘Gorillas,’ Showing Limits of Algorithms.” The Wall Street Journal (July 1). Retrieved from blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/01/google-mistakenly-tags-black-people-as-gorillas-showing-limits-of-algorithms/
Barrett, Brian . 2015. “Google Maps Is Racist Because the Internet Is Racist.” Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/2015/05/google-maps-racist.
Beer, David . 2009. “Power through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious.” New Media and Society 11(6): 985–1002.
Bitzer, Lloyd . 1968. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(1): 1–14.
Bolton, David . 2016. “Tay Tweets: Microsoft Releases Software Allowing Anyone to Create AI Chatbots after Great Success of their Own.” Independent (March 31). Retrieved from www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/microsoft-bot-framework-botbuilder-tay-tweets-chatbot-a6961721.html.
Boyle, Casey . 2015. “The Rhetorical Question Concerning Glitch.” Computers and Composition 35: 12–29.
Brooke, Collin Gifford . 2009. Lingua Fracta: Towards a Rhetoric of New Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Brown, James J., Jr. 2015. Ethical Programs: Hospitality and the Rhetorics of Software. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cooper, Marilyn . 2011. “Rhetorical Agency as Emergent and Enacted.” College Composition and Communication 62(3): 420–448.
Edbauer, Jenny . 2005. “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 5–24.
Geisler, Cheryl . 2004. “How Ought We to Understand the Concept of Rhetorical Agency? Report from the ARS.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 34(3): 9–17.
Gillespie, Tarleton . 2011. “Can an Algorithm Be Wrong? Twitter Trends, the Specter of Censorship, and Our Faith in the Algorithms Around Us.” Culture Digitally (October). Retrieved from http://culturedigitally.org/2011/10/can-an-algorithm-be-wrong.
Gillespie, Tarleton . 2014. “The Relevance of Algorithms.” In Media Technology: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society, edited by Tarleton Gillespie , Pablo J. Boczkowski , and Kirsten A. Foot , 167–193. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gillespie, Tarleton . 2016. “Trendingistrending: When Algorithms Become Culture.” In Algorithmic Cultures: Essays on Meaning, Performance and New Technologies, edited by Robert Seyfert and Jonathan Roberge , 52–75. Abingdon: Routledge.
Gries, Laurie . 2012. “Agential Matters: Tumbleweed, Women-Pens, Citizens-Hope, and Rhetorical Actancy.” In Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media: Writing Ecology, edited by Sidney I. Dobrin , 67–91. New York: Routledge.
Gunkel, David . 2012. The Machine Question. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hern, Alex . 2015. “Flickr Faces Complaints over ‘Offensive’ Auto-Tagging for Photos.” The Guardian (May 20). Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/20/flickr-complaints-offensive-auto-tagging-photos.
Hess, Aaron . 2014. “You Are What You Compute (and What Is Computer for You): Considerations of Digital Rhetorical Identification.” Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric 4(1/2): 1–18.
Hess, Amanda . 2015. “Facebook's Trending is the Worst Place on Earth.” Slate (October). Retrieved from www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/10/facebook_s_trending_algorithm_makes_me_ashamed.html.
Hill, Kashmir . 2012. “How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl Was Pregnant before Her Dad Did.” Forbes (February 16). Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#6a48a85934c6.
Hunt, Elle . 2016. “Tay, Microsoft's AI Chatbot, Gets a Crash Course in Racism from Twitter.” The Guardian (March 24). Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-chatbot-gets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter.
Kennedy, Krista . 2016. Textual Curation: Authorship, Agency, and Technology in Wikipedia and Chambers's Cyclopaedia. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Kohrs Campbell, Karlyn . 2005. “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 2(1): 1–19.
Latour, Bruno . 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, Peter . 2016. “Learning From Tay's Introduction.” Microsoft Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03/25/learning-tays-introduction/#sm.00017kgtu8625e51phi1i32zc6wrm.
Lundberg, Christian , and Joshua Gunn . 2005. “Ouija Board, Are There Any Communications? Agency, Ontotheology, and the Death of the Humanist Subject, or Continuing the ARS Conversation.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 83–105.
Miller, Carolyn R. 2007. “What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37(2): 137–157.
Pariser, Eli . 2012. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin.
Reyman, Jessica . 2013. “User Data on the Social Web: Authorship, Agency, and Appropriation.” College English 75(5): 513–533.
Rickert, Thomas . 2013. Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Sydell, Laura . 2016. “Can Computers Be Racist? The Human-Like Bias of Algorithms.” All Things Considered, NPR (March 14). Retrieved from www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470427605/can-computers-be-racist-the-human-like-bias-of-algorithms.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva . 2011. The Googlization of Everything (And Why We Should Worry). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Vincent, James . 2016. “Twitter Taught Microsoft's AI Chatbot to be a Racist Asshole in Less than a Day.” The Verge (March 24). Retrieved from www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist.
Warnick, Barbara , and David S. Heineman . 2012. Rhetoric Online: The Politics of New Media. 2nd edition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

The New Data

Anderson, Chris . 2008. “The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete.” Wired (June). Retrieved from www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory.
Aristotle . 2007. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated and edited by George A. Kennedy . New York: Oxford University Press.
Askehave, Inger , and Anne E. Nielsen . 2005. “What are the Characteristics of Digital Genres? Genre Theory from a Multi-Modal Perspective.” In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, January 6, 1–8. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
Barthes, Roland . 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill & Wang.
Bentley, R. Alexander , Michael J. O'Brien , and William A. Brock . 2014. “Mapping Collective Behavior in the Big-Data Era.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37(1): 63–119.
Bifet, Albert . 2013. “Mining Big Data in Real Time.” Informatica 37: 15–20.
Blair, Carole , and Mary L. Kahl . 1990. “Introduction: Revising the History of Rhetorical Theory.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 54(2): 148–159.
Bogost, Ian . 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, James J. 2014. “The Machine That Therefore I Am.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 47(4): 494–514.
Carter, Locke M. 2000. “Arguments in Hypertext: A Rhetorical Approach.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Meeting on Hypertext and Hypermedia, San Antonio, Texas, May 30, 85–91. New York: ACM.
Crowley, Sharon , and Debra Hawhee . 2012. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. New York: Pearson Education.
Derrida, Jacques . 1998. Limited Inc. Translated by Gayatri Spivak . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Dewey, John . 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Eronen, Maria . 2013. “Digital Enthymeme: Morality, Emotions, and Materialism in New Media Participation.” Sociedad de la Información 44: 35–64.
Haraway, Donna . 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.
Ingraham, Chris 2013. “Toward an Algorithmic Rhetoric.” In Digital Rhetoric and Global Literacies: Communication Modes and Digital Practices in the Networked World, edited by Gustav Verhulsdonck and Marohang Limbu , 62–79. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Jarratt, Susan C. 1987. “Toward a Sophistic Historiography.” Pre/Text 8(2): 9–26.
Kinneavy, James L. 1986. “Kairos: A Neglected Concept in Classical Rhetoric.” In Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning, edited by Jean Dietz Moss , 79–105. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.
Kneupper, Charles W. 1979. “Dramatistic Invention: The Pentad as a Heuristic Procedure.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 9(3): 130–136.
Latour, Bruno . 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leff, Michael C. , and Dean E. Hewes . 1981. “Topical Invention and Group Communication: Towards a Sociology of Inference.” In Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation, edited by George Ziegelmueler and Jack Rhodes , 770–789. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Lunsford, Andrea A. , and John J. Ruszkiewicz . 2003. Everything's an Argument. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor and Kenneth Cukier . 2013. Big Data: A Revolution that Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
McGee, Michael Calvin . 1990. “Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture.” Western Journal of Communication 54(3): 274–289.
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167.
Miller, Carolyn R. 2007. “What Can Automation Tell Us About Agency?” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37(2): 137–157.
Ochs, Donovan J. 1989. “Cicero and Philosophic Invention.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 19(3): 217–227.
Perelman, Chaim , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca . 1969. The New Rhetoric. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Plato . 1968. The Republic of Plato. 2nd edition. Translated by Allan Bloom . New York: Basic Books.
Porter, James E. 2009. “Recovering Delivery for Digital Rhetoric.” Computers and Composition 26(4): 207–224.
Porter, Theodore . 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Postman, Neil . 1993. Technopoly. New York: Vintage.
Silver, Nate . 2012. The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—But Some Don't. New York: Penguin.
Sloane, Thomas O. 1989. “Reinventing Inventio.” College English 51(5): 461–473.
Topinka, Robert J. 2012. “Resisting the Fixity of Suburban Space: The Walker as Rhetorician.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 42(1): 65–84.
Toulmin, Stephen . 2003. The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijck, José . 2014. “Datafication, Dataism and Dataveillance: Big Data Between Scientific Paradigm and Ideology.” Surveillance and Society 12(2): 197–208.
Young, Richard E. , Alton L. Becker , and Kenneth L. Pike . 1970. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Where is the Body in Digital Rhetoric?

Asad, Amira . 2013. “The Egyptian Feminist Who Was Kidnapped for Posing Nude.” Vice (February 14). Retrieved from www.vice.com/read/the-egyptian-feminist-who-was-kidnapped-for-posing-nude.
Barlow, John Perry . 1996. “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.” Retrieved from http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html.
Birmingham, John . 2014. “Gamergate: How Gaming Became a Feminist Issue.” Sydney Morning Herald (November 1). Retrieved from www.smh.com.au/comment/gamergate-how-gaming-became-a-feminist-issue-20141030-11eixt.html.
Blackwell, Courtney , Jeremy Birnholtz , and Charles Abbott . 2015. “Seeing and Being Seen: Co-situation and Impression Formation Using Grindr, a Location-Aware Gay Dating App.” New Media and Society 17(7): 1117–1136.
Bordo, Susan . 1993. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bucholtz, Mary , and Kira Hall . 2005. “Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach.” Discourse Studies 7(4/5): 585–614.
Cixous, Hélène . 2001. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” In The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, edited by Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg , 1524–1536. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Dahlberg, Lincoln . 2001. “The Habermasian Public Sphere Encounters Cyber-Reality.” Javnost: The Public 8(3): 83–96.
Dahlberg, Lincoln . 2005. “The Habermasian Public Sphere: Taking Difference Seriously?” Theory and Society 34: 111–136.
Davisson, Amber . 2016. “Passing Around Women's Bodies Online: Identity, Privacy, and Free Speech on Reddit.” In Controversies in Digital Ethics, edited by Amber Davisson and Paul Booth , 44–57. New York: Bloomsbury.
Descartes, René . 1960 [1641]. Meditations on First Philosophy. 2nd edition. Translated by Laurence J. Lafleur . New York: Liberal Arts Press.
Dewey, John . 1991. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
Dietrich, Dawn . 1997. “Refashioning the Techno-Erotic Woman: Gender and Textuality in the Cybercultural Matrix.” In Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety, edited by Steve Jones , 169–184. London: Sage.
Doctorow, Cory , and Charles Stross . 2012. The Rapture of the Nerds. New York: Tom Doherty Associates.
Doom, Jilanne . 2015. “The New Porn Platform: Standards Gaps in ‘Revenge Porn’ Policy and Protection.” gnovis 15(2): 1–13.
Dyens, Ollivier . 2001. Metal and Flesh: The Evolution of Man: Technology Takes Over. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Elmahdy, Aliaa Magda . 2011. “Nude Art.” (October 23). Retrieved from http://arebelsdiary.blogspot.com/2011/10/nude-art_2515.html.
Feuerstein, Georg . 1992. Sacred Sexuality: Living the Vision of the Erotic Spirit. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
Foss, Sonja K. 1994. “A Rhetorical Scheme for the Evaluation of Visual Imagery.” Communication Studies 45: 213–224.
Fraser, Nancy . 1990. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Social Text (25/26): 56–80.
Galperina, Marina . 2016. “Russian Robber Ring Targets Gay Men Online Because They Can't Go to the Cops.” Gawker (April 29). Retrieved from http://gawker.com/1773885111.
Gibson, William . 1984. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books.
Graham, Elaine . 1999. “Cyborgs or Goddesses? Becoming Divine in a Cyberfeminist Age.” Information Communication and Society 2(4): 419–438.
Greenberg, Kae . 2012. “Still Hidden in the Closet: Trans Women and Domestic Violence.” Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice 27(2): 198–251.
Gross, Larry . 1993. Contested Closets: The Politics and Ethics of Outing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Grosz, Elizabeth A. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Gunkel, David J. 2001. Hacking Cyberspace. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Habermas, Jürgen . 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by Thomas Burger . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hardaker, Claire . 2010. “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research 6: 215–242.
Hargreaves, Duane , and Marika Tiggemann . 2003. “The Effect of ‘Thin Ideal’ Television Commercials on Body Dissatisfaction and Schema Activation During Early Adolescence.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32(5): 367–373.
Hargreaves, Duane A. , and Marika Tiggemann . 2009. “Muscular Ideal Media Images and Men's Body Image: Social Comparison Processing and Individual Vulnerability.” Psychology of Men and Masculinity 10(2): 109–119.
Harper, Brit , and Marika Tiggemann . 2008. “The Effect of Thin Ideal Media Images on Women's Self-Objectification, Mood, and Body Image.” Sex Roles 58(9): 649–657.
Hasinoff, Amy Adelle . 2012. “Sexting as Media Production: Rethinking Social Media and Sexuality.” New Media and Society 15(4): 449–465.
Hasinoff, Amy Adelle . 2015. Sexting Panic: Rethinking Criminalization, Privacy, and Consent. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Hess, Aaron . 2009. “Resistance Up in Smoke: Analyzing the Limitations of Deliberation on YouTube.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(5): 411–434.
Hess, Aaron . 2014. “You Are What You Compute (and What is Computed For You): Considerations of Digital Rhetorical Identification.” Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric 4(1/2): 1–18.
Hmielowski, Jay D. , Myiah J. Hutchens , and Vincent J. Cicchirillo . 2014. “Living in an Age of Online Incivility: Examining the Conditional Effects of Online Discussion on Political Flaming.” Information, Communication and Society 17(10): 1196–1211.
Jordan, Tim . 2015. “Why I Joined Facebook and Still Regret It.” Social Media + Society Manifesto Issue . Retrieved from http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2056305115578682.full.
Labov, William . 1990. “The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change.” Language Variation and Change 2: 205–254.
Lucaites, John Louis , and Robert Hariman . 2001. “Visual Rhetoric, Photojournalism, and Democratic Public Culture.” Rhetoric Review 20(1/2): 37–42.
Lunceford, Brett . 2007. “The Science of Orality: Implications for Rhetorical Theory.” Review of Communication 7(1): 83–102.
Lunceford, Brett . 2009a. “Building a Collective Identity One Text Phile at a Time: Reading Phrack .” Media History Monographs 11(2): 1–26.
Lunceford, Brett . 2009b. “Cyberwar: The Future of War?” In War and the Media: Essays on News Reporting, Propaganda and Popular Culture, edited by Paul M. Haridakis , Barbara S. Hugenberg , and Stanley T. Wearden , 238–251. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Lunceford, Brett . 2010. “Sex in the Digital Age: Media Ecology and Megan's Law.” Explorations in Media Ecology 9(4): 239–244.
Lunceford, Brett . 2011. “The New Pornographers: New Media, Sexual Expression, and the Law.” In The Ethics of Emerging Media: Information, Social Norms, and New Media Technology, edited by Bruce Drushel and Kathleen M. German , 99–118. New York: Continuum.
Lunceford, Brett . 2012. Naked Politics: Nudity, Political Action, and the Rhetoric of the Body. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
McLuhan, Marshall . 1994. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mentor, The. 1986. “The Conscience of a Hacker.” Phrack 1(7): phile 3.
Millar, Melanie Stewart . 1998. Cracking the Gender Code: Who Rules the Wired World? Toronto: Second Story Press.
Nakamura, Lisa . 1995. “Race in/for Cyberspace: Identity Tourism and Racial Passing on the Internet.” Works and Days 13: 181–193.
Nakamura, Lisa . 2008a. “Cyberrace.” PMLA 123(5): 1673–1682.
Nakamura, Lisa . 2008b. “ MixedFolks.com: Ethnic Ambiguity, Celebrity Outing, and the Internet.” In Mixed Race in Hollywood Film and Media Culture, edited by Mary Beltran and Camille Fogas , 64–83. New York: New York University Press.
Nakamura, Lisa . 2009. “Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game: The Racialization of Labor in World of Warcraft.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(2): 128–144.
Negroponte, Nicholas . 1998. “Beyond Digital.” Wired (December): 288.
Orlowski, Paul . 2011. Teaching About Hegemony: Race, Class and Democracy in the 21st Century. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.
Papacharissi, Zizi . 2002. “The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere.” New Media and Society 4(1): 9–27.
Peterson, Valerie V. 2001. “The Rhetorical Criticism of Visual Elements: An Alternative to Foss's Schema.” Southern Communication Journal 67(1): 19–32.
Pollack, David H. 1992. “Forced Out of the Closet: Sexual Orientation and the Legal Dilemma of ‘Outing.’” University of Miami Law Review 46: 711–750.
Reaves, Shiela , Jacqueline Bush Hitchon , Sunq-Yeon Park , and Gi Woong Yun . 2004. “If Looks Could Kill: Digital Manipulation of Fashion Models.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 19(1): 56–71.
Rheingold, Howard . 1991. Virtual Reality. New York: Summit Books.
Rheingold, Howard . 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saco, Diana . 2002. Cybering Democracy: Public Space and the Internet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Said, Edward W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Saifi, Sophia , and Adeel Raja . 2016. “Qandeel Baloch: Pakistani Social Media Star Strangled by Her Brother.” CNN (July 17). Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2016/07/16/asia/pakistan-qandeel-baloch-murder.
Sennett, Richard . 1996. The Fall of Public Man. New York: W. W. Norton.
Stroud, Scott R. 2014. “The Dark Side of the Online Self: A Pragmatist Critique of the Growing Plague of Revenge Porn.” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 29: 168–183.
Suler, John . 2004. “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” Cyberpsychology and Behavior 7(3): 321–326.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2001. Republic.Com . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Taylor, Paul A. 1999. Hackers: Crime in the Digital Sublime. London: Routledge.
Taylor, Paul A. 2003. “Maestros or Misogynists? Gender and the Social Construction of Hacking,” in Dot.Cons , edited by Yvonne Jewkes , 126–146. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
Turkle, Sherry . 2011. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
White, Frederic . 2000. “Outing the Madman: Fair Housing for the Mentally Handicapped and Their Right to Privacy Versus the Landlord's Duty to Warn and Protect.” Fordham Urban Law Journal 28(3): 783–813.
Wingfield, Nick . 2014. “Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘GamerGate’ Campaign.” New York Times (October 15). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html?_r=1.

Reviving Identity Politics

Alcoff, Linda M. 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20(Winter): 5–33.
Alcoff, Linda M. 2000. “Who's Afraid of Identity Politics?” In Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism, edited by Paula M. L. Moya and Michael R. Hames-Garcia , 312–344. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Alcoff, Linda Martín , and Satya P. Mohanty . 2006. “Reconsidering Identity Politics: An Introduction.” In Identity Politics Reconsidered, edited by Linda Martín Alcoff , Michael R. Hames-Garcia , Satya P. Mohanty , and Paula M. L. Moya , 1–9. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Black Lives Matter . Undated. “About the Black Lives Matter Network.” Retrieved November 18, 2016 from blacklivesmatter.com/about.
Cillizza, Chris . 2015. “YouTube is 10 Years Old. Here's How it has Changed Politics Forever.” Washington Post (April 23). Retrieved on October 10, 2016 from www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/04/23/you-tube-started-10-years-ago-today-its-fundamentally-changed-politics.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé . 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.
Espiritu, Yen Le . 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Fung, Brian . 2016. “The Inspiring Way Hundreds of Asian Americans are Teaching Their Families about Black Lives Matter.” Washington Post (July 8). Retrieved on October 10, 2016 from www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/07/08/the-inspiring-way-hundreds-are-teaching-their-families-about-black-lives-
matter.
Guo, Lei , and Lorin Lee . 2013. “The Critique of YouTube-Based Vernacular Discourse: A Case Study of YouTube's Asian Community.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 30(5): 391-406. (doi: 10.1080/15295036.2012.755048)
Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Hess, Aaron . 2007 “In Digital Remembrance: Vernacular Memory and the Rhetorical Construction of Web Memorials.” Media, Culture and Society 29(5): 812–830.
Hess, Aaron . 2009. “Resistance Up in Smoke: Analyzing the Limitations of Deliberation on YouTube.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 26(5): 411–434.
Holling, Michelle . 2006. “Forming Oppositional Social Concord to California's Proposition 187 and Squelching Social Discord in the Vernacular Space of CHICLE.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3: 202–222.
Howard, Robert Glenn . 2008. “The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 25(5): 490–513. (doi: 10.1080/15295030802468065)
Jenkins, Henry . 2008. “From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns (Part One).” Confessions from an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins (May 9). Retrieved on December 4, 2016 from http://henryjenkins.org/2008/05/interview_with_axel_bruns.html.
Kim, Ryan . 2002. “Yujui Ichioka … Asian American Studies Pioneer.” SFGate (September 12). Retrieved on March 20, 2017 from www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Yuji-Ichioka-Asian-American-studies-pioneer-2799156.php.
Letters for Black Lives. 2016. “Dear Mom, Dad, Uncle, Auntie: Black Lives Matter to Us, Too.” Last modified July 11. Retrieved on October 10, 2016 from https://lettersforblacklives.com/dear-mom-dad-uncle-auntie-black-lives-matter-to-us-too-7ca577d59f4c#.ifrd9kiwi.
Meraji, Shereen Marisol , and Kat Chow . 2016. “A Letter From Young Asian-Americans To Their Families About Black Lives Matter.” NPR Code Switch (July 27). Retrieved on November 18, 2016 from www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/07/27/487375314/a-letter-from-young-asian-americans-to-their-families-about-black-
lives-matter.
Nakamura, Lisa . 2007. Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Ono, Kent A. , and Vincent N. Pham . 2009. Asian Americans and the Media. Malden, MA: Polity.
Ono, Kent A. , and John M. Sloop . 1995. “The Critique of Vernacular Discourse.” Communication Monographs 62: 19–46.
Pham, Vincent N. , and Kent A. Ono . 2008. “‘Artful Bigotry and Kitsch’: A Study of Stereotype, Mimicry, and Satire in Asian American T-Shirt Rhetoric.” In Representations: Doing Asian American Rhetoric, edited by LuMing Mao and Morris Young , 175–197. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Shome, Raka . 1996. “Postcolonial Interventions in the Rhetorical Canon: An ‘Other’ View.” Communication Theory 6(1): 40–59.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty . ed. 1987. “Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography.” In In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics, 197–221. New York: Methuen.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty . 1990. “The Intervention Interview with Terry Threadgold and Frances Bartkowski.” In The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, and Dialogues, edited by Sarah Harasym , 113–132. New York: Routledge.
Spivak, Gayatri , with Ellen Rooney . 1989. “In a Word: Interview .” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 1(2): 124–156.
Wang, Hansi Lo . 2016. “‘Awoken’ By N.Y. Cop Shooting, Asian-American Activists Chart Way Forward.” NPR Code Switch (April 23). Retrieved on October 10, 2016 from www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/04/23/475369524/awoken-by-n-y-cop-shooting-asian-american-activists-chart-way-forward.
Yu, Phil . 2016. “An Open Letter to Our Asian American Families about Black Lives Matter.” Angry Asian Man (July 8). Retrieved on November 21, 2016 from http://blog.angryasianman.com/2016/07/an-open-letter-to-our-asian-american.html.

Toward a Digital Methodology for Ideographic Criticism

Burke, Kenneth . 1941. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cohen, Daniel J. , Michael Frisch , Patrick Gallagher , Steven Mintz , Kirsten Sword , Amy Murrell Taylor , William G. Thomas III , and William J. Turkel . 2008. “Interchange: The Promise of Digital History.” Journal of American History 95(2): 452–491.
Condit, Celeste Michelle . 1999. The Meanings of the Gene: Public Debates about Human Heredity. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Condit, Celeste Michelle , and John Louis Lucaites . 1993. Crafting Equality: America's Anglo-African Word. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Davisson, Amber . 2009. “‘I'm in!’: Hillary Clinton's 2008 Democratic Primary Campaign on YouTube.” Journal of Visual Literacy 28: 70–91.
Duggan, Maeve , Nicole B. Ellison , Cliff Lampe , Amanda Lenhart , and Mary Madden . 2015. “Social Media Update 2014: Demographics of Key Social Networking Platforms.” Pew Research Center (January 9). Retrieved December 9, 2015 , from www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/demographics-of-key-social-networking-
platforms-2.
Edwards, Janis L. , and Carol K. Winkler . 1997. “Representative Form and the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 83(3): 289–310.
Enoch, Jessica , and David Gold . 2013. “Seizing the Methodological Moment: The Digital Humanities and Historiography in Rhetoric and Composition.” College English 76: 105–114.
Grabill, Jeffrey T. , and Stacey Pigg . 2012. “Messy Rhetoric: Identity Performance as Rhetorical Agency in Online Public Forums.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 42(2): 99–119.
Hess, Aaron . 2010. “Democracy Through the Polarized Lens of the Camcorder: Argumentation and Vernacular Spectacle on YouTube in the 2008 Election.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47(1): 106–122.
Howard, Robert Glenn . 2008. “The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 25(5): 490–513.
Jackson, Brian , and Jon Wallin . 2009. “Rediscovering the ‘Back-and-Forthness’ of Rhetoric in the Age of YouTube.” College Composition and Communication 61(2): 374–396.
Johnson, Janet . 2012. “Twitter Bites and Romney: Examining the Rhetorical Situation of the 2012 Presidential Election in 140 Characters.” Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric 2(3/4): 54–64.
McGee, Michael Calvin . 1980. “The ‘Ideograph’: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(1): 1–16.
McGeough, Ryan Erik . 2014. “Endless Talk: The Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy of the Rhetorical Conversation.” In Purpose, Practice, and Pedagogy in Rhetorical Criticism, edited by Jim A. Kuypers , 97–107. Frederick, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
McGill, Andrew . 2016. “Can Twitter Fit Inside the Library of Congress?” The Atlantic (August 4). Retrieved August 17, 2016 from www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/can-twitter-fit-inside-the-library-of-congress/494339.
Moore, Mark P. 1997. “The Cigarette as Representational Ideograph in the Debate Over Environmental Tobacco Smoke.” Communication Monographs 64(1): 47–64.
Palczewski, Catherine Helen . 2003. “What is ‘Good Criticism’? A Conversation in Progress.” Communication Studies 54(3): 385–391.
Pfister, Damien Smith . 2014. Networked Media, Networked Rhetorics: Attention and Deliberation in the Early Blogosphere. State College, PA: Penn State University Press.
Potter, Jennifer E. 2014. “Brown-Skinned Outlaws: An Ideographic Analysis of ‘Illegal(s).’” Communication, Culture and Critique 7(2): 228–245.
Puschmann, Cornelius , Axel Bruns , Merja Mahrt , Katrin Weller , and Jean Burgess . 2014. “Epilogue: Why Study Twitter?” In Twitter and Society, edited by Katrin Weller , Axel Bruns , Jean Burgess , Merja Mahrt , and Cornelius Puschmann , 425–432. New York: Peter Lang.
Silvestri, Lisa . 2013. “A Rhetorical Forecast.” Review of Communication 13(2): 127–142.
Sklar, Kathryn Kish , and Thomas Dublin . 2013. “Creating Meaning in a Sea of Information: The Women and Social Movements Web Sites.” In Writing History in the Digital Age, edited by Jack Dougherty and Kristen Nawrotzki , n.p. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved October 5, 2016 from
http://writinghistory.trincoll.edu.
Twitter . Undated. “It's What's Happening.” Retrieved on October 10, 2016 from https://about.twitter.com/company.
Warnick, Barbara , and David S. Heineman . 2012. Rhetoric Online: The Politics of New Media, 2nd edn. New York: Peter Lang.

Hashtags and Attention through the Tetrad

Biedenharn, Isabella . 2014. “Shonda Rhimes Slams Hashtag Activism: “Stop Pretending Hashtags Are The Same As Doing Something.”” Flavorwire (June 10). Retrieved from http://flavorwire.com/newswire/shonda-rhimes-slams-hashtag-activism-stop-pretending-hashtags-are-the-same-as-doing-something.
Blood, Richard . 2000. “Activism and the Internet: From E-mail to New Political Movement.” Journal of Communication Management 5(2): 160–169.
Diamond, Dan 2014. “The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has Raised $100 Million—and Counting.” Forbes (29 August). Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2014/08/29/the-als-ice-bucket-challenge-has-raised-100m-but-its-finally-cooling-off.
Gillespie, Tarleton . 2016. “#trendingistrending: When Algorithms become Culture.” In Algorithmic Cultures: Essays on Meaning, Performance and New Technologies, edited by Robert Seyfert and Jonathan Roberge . Routledge Advances in Sociology, 52–76. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, Henry A. 2011. “The Crisis of Public Values in the Age of the New Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 28(1): 8–29. (doi: 10.1080/15295036.2011.544618)
Google Trends. 2016. “#ALSIceBucketChallenge.” Retrieved from https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%23alsicebucketchallenge
Google Trends. 2016. “#BlackLivesMatter.” Retrieved from http://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%23blacklivesmatter
Google Trends. 2016. “#Ferguson.” Retrieved from https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%23ferguson
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strenght of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall . 1988. Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Eric S. 2014. “The Modes of Visual Rhetoric: Circulating Memes as Expressions.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 100(4): 442–466. (doi: 10.1080/00335630.2014.989258)
Jenkins, Henry , Sam Ford , and Joshua Green . 2013. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York University Press.
Kennedy, John F. 1961. “Transcript of President John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address (1961) (Print-Friendly Version).” January 20. Retrieved from www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=91&title=Transcript+of+President+John+F.+Kennedy%27s+Inaugural+Address+%281961%29.
Kristofferson, Kirk , Katherine White , and John Peloza . 2014. “The Nature of Slacktivism: How the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent Prosocial Action.” Journal of Consumer Research 40(6): 1149–1166. (doi: 10.1086/674137)
Landers, John E. 2016. “Every Gene.” Retrieved from www.alsa.org/fightals/edau/testimonial-landers.html.
Lanham, Richard A. 2006. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levinson, Paul . 1999. Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium. New York: Routledge.
McLuhan, Marshall . 1975. “McLuhan's Laws of the Media.” Technology and Culture 16(1): 74–78.
Oremus, Will . 2014. “Take the ‘No Ice Bucket’ Challenge.” Slate (12 August). Retrieved from www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/08/12/icebucketchallenge_you_don_t_need_an_ice_bucket_to_donate_to_als_research.html.
Pfister, Damien S. 2014. Networked Media, Networked Rhetorics: Attention and Deliberation in the Early Blogosphere. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Rentschler, Carrie . 2015. “#Safetytipsforladies: Feminist Twitter Takedowns of Victim Blaming.” Feminist Media Studies 15(2): 353–356. (doi: 10.1080/14680777.2015.1008749)
Shannon, Claude E. and Warren Weaver . 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Tatarchevskiy, Tatiana . 2011. “The ‘Popular’ Culture of Internet Activism.” New Media and Society 13(2): 297–313. (doi: 10.1177/1461444810372785)
Thrift, Samantha C. 2014. “#YesAllWomen as Feminist Meme Event.” Feminist Media Studies 14(6): 1090–1092. (doi: 10.1080/14680777.2014.975421)
Tucker, Nikki . 2014. “Ferguson vs. the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.” Clutch Magazine (August). Retrieved on November 16, 2016 from www.clutchmagonline.com/2014/08/ferguson-vs-als-ice-bucket-challenge.
Van den Broek, Tijs A. , Michel L. Ehrenhard , David J. Langley , and Aard J. Groen . 2012. “Dotcauses for Sustainability: Combining Activism and Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Public Affairs 12(3): 214–223. (doi: 10.1002/pa.1435)
Warner, Michael . 2002. “Publics and Counterpublics (Abbreviated Version).” Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (4): 413–425. (doi: 10.1080/00335630209384388)
Woo, Hyung-Jin 2003. “Propaganda Wars in Cyberspace: A Content Analysis of Web Defacement Strategies among Politically Motivated Hacker Groups.” Paper presented at the International Communication Association Conference, San Diego, CA.
Yang, Guobin . 2016. “Narrative Agency in Hashtag Activism: The Case of #BlackLivesMatter.” Media and Communication 4(4): 13. (doi: 10.17645/mac.v4i4.692)
Ethics, Agency, and Power
Beer, David . 2009. “Power through the Algorithm? Participatory Web Cultures and the Technological Unconscious.” New Media and Society 11(6): 985–1002.
Bennett, Jane . 2010. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Burns, Alexander . 2011. “Rick Santorum Contacted Google, Says Company Spreads ‘Filth.’” Politico (September 20). Retrieved from www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs . 2005. “Agency: Promiscuous and Protean.” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 2(1): 1–19.
Dewey, Caitlin . 2016. “Facebook Fake-News Writer: ‘I Think Donald Trump Is in the White House Because of Me.’” The Washington Post (November 17). Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-
me/?utm_term=.26adc6e5c7f1.
Dobrin, Sidney I. , ed. 2012. Ecology, Writing Theory, and New Media: Writing Ecology. New York: Routledge.
Edbauer, Jenny . 2005. “Unframing Models of Public Distribution: From Rhetorical Situation to Rhetorical Ecologies.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 5–24.
Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar . 1993. “The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science.” Southern Communication Journal 58(4): 258.
Geisler, Cheryl . 2004. “How Ought We to Understand the Concept of Rhetorical Agency? Report from the ARS.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 34(3): 9–17.
Harkinson, Josh . 2016. “White Nationalists See Trump as Their Troll in Chief. Is He with Them?” Mother Jones (November 22). Retrieved from www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/trump-white-nationalists-hate-racism-power.
Hayles, Katherine . 1999. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Herrman, John . 2016. “Inside Facebook's (Totally Insane, Unintentionally Gigantic, Hyperpartisan) Political-Media Machine.” The New York Times (August 24). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/magazine/inside-facebooks-totally-insane-unintentionally-gigantic-hyperpartisan-political-media-machine.html.
Lanham, Richard A. 2007. The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lash, Scott . 2007. “Power after Hegemony: Cultural Studies in Mutation?” Theory, Culture and Society 24(3): 55–78.
Latour, Bruno . 2007. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor–Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Timothy B. 2016. “Facebook's Fake News Problem, Explained.” Vox (November 16). Retrieved from www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13637310/facebook-fake-news-explained.
Levy, Stephen . 2010. “Exclusive: How Google's Algorithm Rules the Web.” Wired (February 22). Retrieved from www.wired.com/2010/02/ff_google_algorithm.
Lundberg, Christian , and Joshua Gunn . 2005. “‘Ouija Board, Are There Any Communications?’ Agency, Ontotheology, and the Death of the Humanist Subject, Or, Continuing the ARS Conversation.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35(4): 83–105.
Miller, Carolyn R. 2007. “What Can Automation Tell Us about Agency?” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37(2): 137–157.
Newitz, Annalee . 2016. “It's Time to Get Rid of the Facebook ‘News Feed,’ Because It's Not News.” Ars Technica (November 19). Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/staff/2016/11/its-time-to-get-rid-of-the-facebook-news-feed-because-its-not-news.
Nunez, Michael . 2016. “Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News.” Gizmodo (May 9). Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006.
Rickert, Thomas J. 2013. Ambient Rhetoric: The Attunements of Rhetorical Being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Snowdon, Catherine . 2016. “What's Happening to the Pound?” BBC News (October 7). Retrieved from www.bbc.com/news/business-37584727.
Striphas, Ted . 2015. “Algorithmic Culture.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 18(4–5): 395–412.
Sullivan, Gail . 2014. “How Facebook and Twitter Control What You See About Ferguson.” The Washington Post (August 19). Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/19/how-facebook-and-twitter-control-what-you-see-about-ferguson.
Syverson, Margaret A. 1999. The Wealth of Reality: An Ecology of Composition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Thielman, Sam . 2016. “Facebook Fires Trending Team, and Algorithm without Humans Goes Crazy.” The Guardian (August 29). Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/29/facebook-fires-trending-topics-team-algorithm.
Tufekci, Zeynep . 2016. “Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial.” The New York Times (November 15). Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-is-in-denial.html.

Pinning, Gazing, and Swiping Together

Anderson, Benedict . 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso Books.
Arbel, Tali . 2016. “For Some, Swiping on Tinder App Just a Game.” Associated Press (February 14). Detroit Free Press (February 14). Retrieved on August 2, 2016 from www.freep.com/story/life/2016/02/14/online-dating-game/80393062.
Arjoranta, Jonne . 2014. “Game Definitions: Wittgensteinian Approach.” Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research 14(1). Retrieved on January 23, 2016 from http://gamestudies.org/1401/articles/arjoranta.
Bogost, Ian . 2007. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bolton, Doug . 2016. “Tinder Is Not a ‘Game’ Anymore, After ‘Keep Playing’ Button Disappears from the App.” Independent (April 26). Retrieved on August 2, 2016 from www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/tinder-is-not-a-game-anymore-following-changes-to-the-dating-app-a7002506.html.
Burke, Kenneth . 1931. Counter-statement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1966. Language as Symbolic Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969a. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1969b. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, Kenneth . 1973. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. 3rd edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Constine, Josh , and Kim-Mai Cutler . 2012. “Facebook Buys Instagram For $1 Billion, Turns Budding Rival Into Its Standalone Photo App.” TechCrunch (April 9). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from https://techcrunch.com/2012/04/09/facebook-to-acquire-instagram-for-1-billion.
Davisson, Amber , and Danielle Gehm . 2014. “Gaming Citizenship: Video Games as Lessons in Civic Life.” Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric 4(3/4): 39–57.
Dickson, E. J. 2014. “The Committed Couple's Guide to ‘Playing’ Tinder.” The Daily Dot (August 19). Retrieved on August 2, 2016 from www.dailydot.com/debug/how-to-tinder-for-couples.
Duggan, Maeve . 2015. “Mobile Messaging and Social Media 2015.” Pew Research Social Media Group (August 19). Retrieved on August 25, 2015 from www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/mobile-messaging-and-social-media-2015.
Duggan, Maeve , Nicole B. Ellison , Cliff Lampe , Amanda Lenhart , and Mary Madden . 2014. “Demographics of Key Social Networking Platforms.” January 9. Retrieved on February 2, 2015 from www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/demographics-of-key-social-networking-platforms-2.
Ehrhardt, Michelle . 2016. “What Tinder and Halo Have in Common.” The Atlantic (January 18). Retrieved on August 2 2016 from www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/01/how-tinder-matchmaking-is-like-warcraft/424350.
Emery, Lea Rose . 2016. “Tinder Social Is Changing the Dating App Game with Group Matches.” Bustle (July 21). Retrieved on August 2 2016 from www.bustle.com/articles/174032-tinder-social-is-changing-the-dating-app-game-with-group-matches.
Empson, Rip . 2013. “Tinder: Finding Traction on Campuses, IAC's New Dating App Makes It Easy to Break the Ice.” TechCrunch (January 3). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 form https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/03/tinder-finding-traction-on-campuses-hatch-labs-new-dating-app-makes-it-easy-to-break-the-ice.
Erasmus, Desiderius . 1963 [1512]. On Copia of Words and Ideas. Translated by Donald Bernard King and H. David Rex . Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.
Freud, Sigmund . 2003 [1913]. Totem and Taboo. New York: Routledge.
Garrett, Jenna . 2015. “Hipster Barbie Quits the Internet, Leaving Us Without a Hero.” Wired (November 4). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from www.wired.com/2015/11/socality-barbie-quits.
Glascock, Taylor . 2015. “Hipster Barbie is so Much Better at Instagram than You.” Wired (September 3). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from www.wired.com/2015/09/hipster-barbie-much-better-instagram.
Instagram. 2011. “Introducing Hashtags on Instagram.” Instagram Blog (January 26). Retrieved on April 18, 2016 from http://blog.instagram.com/post/8755963247/introducing-hashtags-on-instagram.
Instagram. 2015. “Celebrating a Community of 400 Million.” Instagram Blog (September 22). Retrieved on April 18, 2016 from http://blog.instagram.com/post/129662501137/150922-400million.
Jones, Hillary A. 2016. “New Media Producing New Labor: Pinterest, Yearning, and Self-Surveillance.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 33(4): 352–365.
Kinsella, Carl . 2015. “Somebody Has Turned Tinder into a Gameboy-style Game and It's as Addictive as the Real Thing.” Joe.ie (September). Retrieved on August 2, 2016 from www.joe.ie/news/somebody-has-turned-tinder-into-a-gameboy-style-game/509235.
Kirby, Matthew . 2016. “This Photographer Created a Tinder Card Game after 1,000 People Rejected Him.” Konbini (January). Retrieved on August 2, 2016 from www.konbini.com/us/entertainment/photographer-tinder-card-game-rejection.
Lenhart, Amanda . 2015. “Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015.” Pew Research Social Media Group (April 9). Retrieved on February 2, 2015 from www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015.
Luckerson, Victor . 2013. “A Year Later, Instagram Hasn't Made a Dime: Was It Worth $1 Billion?” Time (April 9). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from http://business.time.com/2013/04/09/a-year-later-instagram-hasnt-made-a-dime-was-it-worth-1-billion.
Luckerson, Victor . 2016. “Here's Proof That Instagram Was One of the Smartest Acquisitions Ever.” Time (April 19). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from http://time.com/4299297/instagram-facebook-revenue.
Lui, Debora . 2015. “Public Curation and Private Collection: The Production of Knowledge on Pinterest.com .” Critical Studies in Media Communication 32(2): 128–142.
Manovich, Lev . 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Manovich, Lev . 2013. “The Algorithms of Our Lives.” The Chronicle Review (December 16). Retrieved on March 11, 2015 from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Algorithms-of-Our-Lives-/143557/.
Markowitz, Eric . 2012. “How Instagram Grew from Foursquare Knock-Off to $1 Billion Photo Empire.” Inc. (April 10). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from www.inc.com/eric-markowitz/life-and-times-of-instagram-the-complete-original-story.html.
Murray, Janet H. 1997. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Pierce, David . 2016. “The Oral History of Tinder's Alluring Right Swipe.” Wired (September 28). Retrieved on October 2, 2016 from www.wired.com/2016/09/history-of-tinder-right-swipe.
Sales, Nancy Jo . 2015. “Tinder and the Dawn of the ‘Dating Apocalypse.’” Vanity Fair (September).
Scolere, Leah , and Lee Humphreys . 2016. “Pinning Design: The Curatorial Labor of Creative Professionals.” Social Media+ Society 2(1). Retrieved on May 24, 2016 from http://sms.sagepub.com/content/2/1/2056305116633481.full.
Systrom, Kevin . 2014. “300 Million: Sharing Real Moments.” Instagram Blog (December 10). Retrieved on April 18, 2016 http://blog.instagram.com/post/104847837897/141210-300million.
Tinder. 2016. “About Tinder.” Tinder Press Packet. Retrieved on May 12, 2016 from www.gotinder.com/press.

I Am What I Play and I Play What I Am

Althusser, Louis . 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 3rd edition, edited by John Storey , 336–346. London: Pearson.
Burke, Kenneth . 1950. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cassell, Justine , and Henry Jenkins . 1998a. “Chess for Girls? Feminism and Computer Games.” In From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games, edited by Justine Cassell and Henry Jenkins , 2–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cassell, Justine , and Henry Jenkins . 1998b. From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Charland, Maurice . 1987. “Constitutive Rhetoric: The Case of the Peuple Québécois .” Quarterly Journal of Speech 73(2): 133–150.
Chess, Shira . 2011. “A 36-24-36 Cerebrum: Productivity, Gender, and Video Game Advertising.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 28(3): 230–252. (doi: 10.1080/15295036.2010.515234)
Chess, Shira . 2016. “A Time for Play: Interstitial Time, Invest/Express Games, and Feminine Leisure Style.” New Media and Society [online first]. (doi: 10.1177/1461444816660729)
Consalvo, Mia . 2009. “Hardcore Casual: Game Culture Return(s) to Ravenhearst.” In FDG '09: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games [Orlando, Florida, April 26–30] , 50–54. New York: ACM. (doi: 10.1145/1536513.1536531)
Consalvo, Mia . 2011. “Confronting Toxic Gamer Culture; A Challenge for Feminist Game Studies Scholars.” Ada 1. Retrieved from http://adanewmedia.org/2012/11/issue1-consalvo.
Cote, Amanda . 2015. “‘I Can Defend Myself’: Women's Strategies for Coping with Harassment while Gaming Online.” Games and Culture [online first]. (doi: 10.1177/1555412015587603)
Davisson, Amber , and Danielle Gehm . 2011. “Gaming Citizenship: Video Games in Civic Life.” Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric 4(3/4): 49–57.
Duggan, Maeve . 2015. “Gaming and Gamers.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science and Tech (December 15). Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/2015/12/15/gaming-and-gamers.
Gray, Kishonna . 2014. Race, Gender, and Deviance in Xbox Live: Theoretical Perspectives from the Virutal Margins. New York: Routledge.
Kocurek, Carly A. 2015. Coin-Operated Americans: Rebooting Boyhood at the Video Game Arcade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Latour, Bruno . 1994. “On Technical Mediation—Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy.” Common Knowledge 3(2): 29–64.
Manovich, Lev . 2002. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Massanari, Adrienne . 2015. “#Gamergate and The Fappening: How Reddit's Algorithm, Governance, and Culture Support Toxic Technocultures.” New Media and Society (October). (doi: 10.1177/1461444815608807)
Shaw, Adrienne . 2012. “Do You Identify as a Gamer? Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Gamer Identity.” New Media and Society 14(1): 28–44.
Shaw, Adrienne . 2013. “On Not Becoming Gamers: Moving Beyond the Constructed Audience.” Ada 2. Retrieved from http://adanewmedia.org/2013/06/issue2-shaw.
Shaw, Adrienne . 2015. Gaming at the Edge: Sexuality and Gender at the Margins of Gamer Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Stein, Sarah R. 2002. “The ‘1984’ Macintosh Ad: Cinematic Icons and Constitutive Rhetoric in the Launch of a New Machine.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 88(2): 169–192.

Afterword
Deleuze, Gilles . 1992. “Postscript on the Societies of Control.” October 59: 3–7.
James, Josh . 2012. “How Much Data Is Created Every Minute?” DOMO (June 8). Retrieved March 6, 2014 from www.domo.com/blog/2012/06/how-much-data-is-created-every-minute.
Kagan, Noah . 2014, Sep 11. “Why Content Goes Viral: What Analyzing 100 Million Articles Taught Us.” The Huffington Post (June 13). Retrieved on December 30, 2016 from www.huffingtonpost.com/noah-kagan/why-content-goes-viral-wh_b_5492767.html.
McLuhan, Marshall , and Quentin Fiore . 1968. War and Peace in the Global Village. New York: Bantam.
Mearian, Lucas . 2012. “By 2020, There Will be 5,200 GB of Data for Every Person on Earth.” Computerworld (December 11). Retrieved December 28, 2016 from www.computerworld.com/article/2493701/data-center/by-2020—there-will-be-5-200-gb-of-data-for-every-person-on-earth.html.
Ott, Brian L. 2007. The Small Screen: How Television Equips Us to Live in the Information Age. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ott, Brian L. 2014. “My Two Bytes [WSCA Presidential Address].” Western Journal of Communication 78(3): 378–381.
Ott, Brian L. 2017. “The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 34(1): 59–68.
Wood, Brian . 2013. “Info-Graphic: How Big Is Big Data?” AIS Enterprise-Class Data Center Services (March 4). Retrieved on www.americanis.net/2013/info-graphichow-big-is-big-data.
Wurman, Richard Saul . 1989. Information Anxiety. New York: Doubleday.