Edge1320

Borowitz is a naysayer in this situation. The author combats him in the next paragraph by quoting someone to support her claim.

Yeah this article isn't biased at all.

The Naysayer is Google, the author responds in the next paragraph with her "witty" statement countering the idea of the faceless web.

Here from the very beginning, Pamela is a naysayer. She introduces the fact that people seem to believe that others want to know what is going on in their lives. Social media, or even communication itself is full of information that she and I wouldn't want to hear. Pamela implies that people do think that people care and this is to say that people don't care or need to know about everything going on in their lives. 

Colby Hall is a naysayer in this part of the article but in a yes but sense. She states that the people she knows in Kansas are dear sweet people but sees them depressed when she gets a notification on facebook. This is saying that she likes the way we are all connected through social media and have the power to just use a click send to stay connected but the send button is being misused at too much unnecessary information is being sent such as farmville requests. I know I get annoyed when a notification is just a request to cut my neighbors grass. She is naysaying about how we need to share even the smallest changes in our lives as though people care. 

Here, Pamela Paul is positioning the google spokesperson (who is a proponent of the new type of google search) as a naysayer to her argument that that our ever increasing connectedness to past relationships by way of social media is a curse and not a blessing. She deals with this opposition by mocking the notion of "the faceless web" and asserts that we have the exact opposite problem. She obviously does not take the google spokespersons position seriously because she twists it in her summary with the yellow bikini anecdote.

Jaron Lanier is a naysayer, who makes a very valid point. Social media getting into our heads, and not in a good way. It's slowly but surely turning our world into self conscience creeps. Lanier's comment about Bob Dylan makes me think that the reason for his success had to do with the fact that, "he did him." His unique style made him who he was as an artist. Could we be just as unique without the constant thought of what our "friends" on facebook or twitter would think?

Here the author identifies Colby Hall as a naysayer. In this case, because he first states about the people in Kansas being sweet people and then says something about people in 'Farmville' asking you to feed the cows.

Zigman, a naysayer, who doesn't even like travelling makes a concession, saying that she was roped into wanting to vacation like many of her online friends, because her friends had done it. 

Turkle is a naysayer, believing that people should not be lookning at other peoples information in the way that they do. She finds that people often have a negative emotional feedback from "creeping" on other's online life because they know that they shouldn't, but she also points out that people just can't help looking at it.

The author seems to be kind of disagreeing with Werbach by making the argument that while in some cases you are able to just remove little things from your online profile, the kind of things you find amusing at the time, there are some pieces of your information that aren't so easily removed online. Therefore, those pieces of information can really hurt someone in some way.

Ms. Crosley is a naysayer. She disagrees that there is an online escape for many, because they choose to find what they are trying to avoid. Even though you can ignore someones updates, you can still get to a point that you crave the information and desire to search it out on their pages. 

Houston is a naysayer, she disagrees that a suggest online friend could become an online friend. The anticipated online persona and the person alone would only have a negative impact on her mood for the day.

The author here is a naysayer, disagreeing with the information relayed by the Google spokesman. Instead of seeing the information of the Google plus members being well integrated into the Web in a productive manner, Paul finds that it would just be a negative addition adding more unnecessary "faces" to the "faceless Web."

The author decides Colby Hall as a naysayer. This is predominately due to Hall's opinion towards the use of "Farmville" as communication.

Klam is a naysayer, do to her underlying idea that people are overly obsessive with the use of social media to contact people.

The author describes Colby Hall as a naysayer. Because Colby says his friends from Kansas are sweet people but says nothing says depressed like people asking you to feed the cows on Farmville.

The author decides Colby Hall as a naysayer. This is predominately due to Hall's opinion towards the use of "Farmville" as communication.

Colby Hall, as the naysayer, is objecting to the overload of too much information that comes from old friends in Kansas. This naysaying points agrees with the overall argument that Paul is making about there just being too much unnecessary information shared.

The author, Paul, is the naysayer. Here she makes an informal objection to the idea the Google spokesman presented, believing the Web already has enough "faces" in "the faceless Web," and not much of what Google Plus members can add will attribute to the Web productively. 

Ms. Crosley is a naysayer here, disagreeing with the idea that you can hide out online from the people that you are trying to ignore. Instead of just ignoring them, she argues that you can end up searching to find the information that you try so hard to avoid. Because you know that it is still there online.