In Motoko Rich's article, "Literacy debate: Online, r u really reading?", Rich looks at how people, particularly children and teenagers, are reading. The article tries to tackle the pros and cons of internet reading. On one side, it is argued that internet reading is bad because it replaces novel reading, negatively affects our concentration abilities, causes frequent internet readers to have lower reading comprehension skills than frequent novel readers, and possibly rewires our neural circuits. But on the other side, it is argued that internet reading is good because it still makes us read (rather than watch television), helps us to view multiple different view points on a topic, and helps us to find and pinpoint the information we want faster. The question is, do the pros outweigh the cons? Do the beneficial effects of internet reading outweigh the negative consequences? Should people like Zachary Sims, who have dyslexia, be asking themselves the same questions? Or should the consequences of internet reading, both negative and positive, be looked at on a personal level? Is internet reading really something that we can universally condemn or universally praise? Or are the pros and cons of internet reading something that should be condemned or praised on an individual basis?