As I read both articles the tool convergence of Gilliard’s “Pedagogy and the Logic of Platforms” and McLuhan’s ideas, as explored in Applen’s text, reveals an unsettling truth. the technologies shaping our educational spaces and digital lives are not neutral. Gilliard critiques the way platforms embedded in surveillance capitalism reshape higher education, echoing McLuhan’s core message that “the medium is the message.” Educational technologies now model themselves on data driven platforms not to foster learning, but to optimize retention and monetize behavior.
This shift is not just structural it is deeply cultural. Gilliard introduces “digital redlining,” where algorithms replicate historical patterns of discrimination, reinforcing class and racial boundaries under the guise of efficiency. Students are unknowingly entering into exploitative systems that dictate what knowledge is accessible to them based on their economic and racial profiles this isn’t accidental it’s design.
Insights help us understand the larger implications. The content of a tool like Google or a learning management system is less important than how it reshapes our engagement with knowledge. As Carr argues, we skim instead of reflect we seek answers, not understanding the speed and convenience these platforms offer come at the cost of depth and contemplation.
Together, these perspectives demand a rethinking of digital pedagogy. If we are to “save the web” and restore meaningful education, we must question what technology delivers and what it does to our minds, cultures, and students’ futures. If higher education is to have a role in saving the web, it must start by helping students imagine alternatives. That means rethinking consent, access, pedagogy, and what it truly means to be informed. It’s not just about using tech in the classroom it’s about critically examining the power structures embedded within it.
Leave a Reply