I found these articles to be quite fascinating as well as informative for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I have always considered the concept of "hashtag activism" to get a bad rap - I was genuinely thrilled to read Gooden's words to define hashtag activism as a way to sustain engagement in an important discussion. In that way, I was informed of a new (and to me, better, more concise) way of summing up my own perspective on hashtag activism. I'm usually very intrigued by new words and phrases, so this particular moment stuck out to me.

Secondly, I found the diversity in the authors' voices to be interesting. Jones wrote in such a way that you could tell she was incredibly passionate on her topic - she had developed a positive experience with social media, and was intent on relaying that type of experience to her respective audience. Similarly, Ruddy was passionate about her decision to not "fakebook" - but her intent was not to inspire her audience, but necessarily to communicate a decision that she found to be worth noting in her life. This dialogue, then, is a different type of discourse, and is intended for a different type of community/audience. Finally, the interview with Gooden was more formal, and translated into a spoken text - I'm not sure that this is incredibly relevant to the content regarding social media, but I found that the language Gooden used within the interview contrasted greatly from that of the other two authors.... To me, this is worthy of contemplation and asking myself, as well as you all, "Why is this difference significant?" Or, of course, conversely, "Why is it not?"

The differences in the discourse developing from these authors has a lot to do with the ways in which the authors hope to be perceived by their respective audiences, or who they believe their audiences to be. The levels of formality shift depending on the assumed familiarity with the audience. What I believe to be significant in regards to Harris's writing is when Harris states that "...community can soon become an empty and sentimental world" (Harris 13) - considering the communities that were behind the development of each of the author's writings and experiences, it is interesting to me to wonder the sentimentality of it. Additionally, the communities that the authors are actively participating in and/or creating as a response to their own writings evoke an anticipated sense of sentimentality to me as a reader..... The consideration of "sentiment" makes me curious to wonder this as a member of multiple communities - how do we know when we are inspiring or creating new communities from our actions/work (if we ever do  - this is probably not a given), and if we aren't aware of the creation forming (I assume most people aren't, as I certainly have not been - yet my personal experience does not define another's), does the "sentiment" regarding community even have the chance to exist in the active community, or simply in the reflection of that community? This quote from Harris has truly sparked a somewhat abstract idea for me - I'm not sure how I will continue to mull this over, but it will most likely remain regardless.

On my final note, I think it is fitting to end with Harris's statement that "Community becomes... a kind of stabilizing term, used to give a sense of shared purpose and effort" (14). These discourses wouldn't have existed had there not be a community to act as a stabilizer - and likewise, some communities (such as the audience to a blog) would not have existed had the blog writer not worked from the inspiration of a particular community (the mother writing of her children/family/facebook). Our shared purposes in one community, it seems, can spark a new conversation in another... To me, this is our society's own "sustained engagement" in the discourse of the world.