Research has shown that the older generation of people doesn't use the internet as their primary source of information. They rather use it to complement their print media consumption. One of the main reasons for this is the fact that the internet has a low trustworthiness score among consumers. They perceive traditional media as far more trustworthy compared to their online equivalents. The role of the user-generated news content is therefore limited. If people consume news online, they will go the the website of a newspaper or news-server (NOS for instance) which is quite trustworthy. They won't go (normally) to a random blog for their latest news. It's important though that people remain critical and realize that not everything that is written online is solid truth.

It's a two-sided matter. With the introduction of the internet people were already concerned about the consequences on their privacy. This means that all those years people were aware of what could happened, and now that it has happened, they all appear to be in a state of shock and feel violated. I think this is quite naive. This does however not change the fact that intruding into someones privacy is a crime (according to the law). In a perfect world, the NSA would only keep track of the doings of the ''bad guys'' in this world. Like terrorists and North - Korea. And although this is not the case, I do not think that the NSA poses a real threat to the general public. Perhaps this will even lead to more responsible usage of internet by the consumers .

As far as I am concerned, it does not exist. I also find it very naive when you actually believe that whatever you post on line, is kept in total secrecy and only visible to those you decide to share it with. We live in a day and age where many decide to share everything on line, rather than discussing if privacy exists, we should inform people on HOW they can increase their privacy.

I personally believe that branding yourself is something you indeed do for you own career rather than the organization you work for. The values you promote are not lost upon changing jobs, and are very personal. If you want to do branding for the organization then you might have to use different approaches and / or values compared to your own.

It are the big companies of our time who are most responsible for even causing the environmental crises. In order to solve these issues, it are these exact same companies who should alter their approaches and instead go for a more sustainable business model. However, the main problem here is that these companies often don't look at their pollution or the amount of animals extinct by their doing, they often only see profits.

E-sports is a new sport one could say, and not well known to the masses. Furthermore the image of gaming is still quite negative and will, most likely, never become as popular as football for instance. However, seeing as the gaming industry itself is huge and growing at a rapid paste I do predict e-sports to become big, but with an audience that is dedicated to the game. Whereas for the more conventional sports, the audience does not have to have any dedication, as the sport itself is simple and well known enough to enjoy, regardless of prior knowledge.

Are they the most reliable source of information? No, not at all. However, in my opinion they might actually tell you more about a person than a job-interview does. In your description you state that people might portrait themselves differently online compared to who they actually are in ''real-life'' . I however believe that people act differently when they are at a job-interview. That's where they want to leave the most positive of impressions, and often people lie about the skills they have and their experience simply to get the job. Their Facebook is a platform where they can actually be themselves among their friends, and will not be (or rarely) judged.

Also, if you have any sort of brain you put your facebook profile on private, that already solves the whole danger of being judged by your boss.

It's difficult to state such a thing as it's different for every individual and not to be generalized per gender. From my own perspective, and experience, I can say that I for one like to have elaborate information prior to purchase. For me the visual aspect of the advertisement is merely an eye-catcher and does not lead to a decision.

I think it absolutely does. Whenever people ask me why I decided to study in an international environment, my number 1 answer always is : ''because then I am not limited to the Dutch job market'' . People underestimate the power of an international degree.

I think that, especially in this day and age, a slow shift occurs where quantity rules over quality. Newswebsites and such don't want to deliver the best news first, they want to deliver the most news first so people think they are really good in what they do. Furthermore, these days everyone is a journalist if he/she so desires. Just create a blog, and start posing newsworthy items, there you go. And that is why the news is more and more inaccurate, people have so many options and are bombarded by ''breaking news'' that the value of the news actually seems to go down.

I feel that the internet has several disadvantages, yet we've learned to live with it. For example, one can argue that we became less social creatures although we communicate more. We are less likely to meet up with friends as there is a shift to meeting in a more digital environment. As for privacy, this will remain an ongoing discussion. Define privacy? You are the one who shares stuff on the internet, and should be aware of the possible dangers. I think it's pertty hypocrit in a way, to be a frequent internet user and still think no one can invade your privacy.

I think you can bring a message accros in 6 seconds, the question however is, are the people who you are aiming at willing to take the message in? I personally hate advertisements online, therefore I have 2 addblockers installed. I think that the reach of these advertisements are low, and considered to be plain annoying. Why else would addblockers excist. So to answer the question, I think they can but only if the target audience is really interested and open.

Morally incorrect? Yes, absolutely. However, the people behind the website are not the ones who are cheating. The people who actually make use of this website are the ones to blame. You can't blame a gun for shooting someone if you pull the trigger ;)

Although I firmly believe in the shift towards digital communication and also ultilising it for education, there is a border that should not be crossed. I think that elementary schools should stick to their traditional ways of teaching, simply because these basics are too important for the development of the children. However, learning them at a young age how to safely use Ipads and such, is not a bad idea. But the balance needs to be found.

Very controversial, yet interesting topic. I think that's a matter of weighing the arguments on both sides. On the one side you have the privacy matter, whereas the other side is about utilising social media to lock up criminals. I personally think that if we solely use it for finding them and not, like Koen mentioned, become cops ourselves by physically abusing them, it's all good. After all, just imagine that some criminals might still walk around as free men if it weren't for the power of social media.

I think that an attractive image is just a small part of the bigger picture (pun intended) . Would I follow a fashion brand purely for its amazing artwork or image content? No. But would I follow a fashion brand with attractive image content but who is also able to convey its message in an attractive way, and thus in general make it an interesting brand for me, then yes. I do agree that attractive image content is important, but only to a certain extent.