Final Blog Post: My Online Presence

The Fast Company Article I'm 14, and I Quit Social Media is a very interesting take on the dangers of online fingerprints. The eighth grader provides a detailed narrative on how other people were posting about her, and she had no knowledge of any photos or text that was being catalogued by her family. At her age, it would be dangerous and scary to have "unauthorized social media presence" because like anything on the Internet, it may come back to harm you later.

Personally, my online footprint is quite small. I browse and post certain types of content on a private account that has no ties to my identity, but my name appears on social media sites scarcely. I have a private instagram account that I rarely use, I run a YouTube channel where I post my projects, and I have a website about myself to show to future employers. 

My parents were very strict about my social media usage. I was unable to have any social media accounts until I was a sophomore in high school. They were afraid for me during a time where many different popular figures were defamed because of old posts to social media that were unacceptable. They were constantly monitoring and reminding me about the things that I posted, even if they were seemingly harmless. Their messages encourage me to keep my digital footprint as professional as possible.

From a public view, visitors to my sites would not learn much about my personal life. Unless they were to make their way into my private accounts under my knowledge, the only thing the public eye would see are things that I would want employers to see. I surmise that people feel isolated without social media and try to fill that void by making their presence online as noticeable as possible. There are, however, many psychological downsides to social media presence on the Internet.

Many users online are unforgiving and ruthless. Anonymous or not, people can be malicious while hiding behind a screen. This leads to cyber bullying and toxic environments over different social mediums. I agree with the notion that the rise in social media has led to an increase in depression and suicide rates. According to an NBC News article about the correlation between social media and suicide, between 2007 and 2015, suicide rates doubled for teenage boys and girls. This is a truly concerning statistic. The general amount of smartphone consumption by teens is a high statistic, and measures should ethically be taken to decrease the psychological threats of media.

While here are many benefits to having a social media presence, but I do not prefer to have information about myself accessible to the public for as long as the Internet will exist. I think it best to keep it professional.

The Danger of Echo Chambers (EOTO 2 Response)

One of the dangers of modern media consumption is the threat of echo chambers as a trap in which people's perspectives are polarized and reinforced only one sided. Millennials who grew up getting their news from social media have tendencies to seek sources that only agree with their own point of view. Why is this so prevalent, and how is it harmful?

According to GCF Global, echo chambers are environments where a person only encounters information or opinions that reflect and reinforce their own. One factor leading into this selective process is the nature of big tech companies recommending media to consumers that they would like or agree with. An example of this is Instagram's "posts you might like" or YouTube's "recommended videos." Echo chambers are created when an individuals feed is clouded with material that complies with their views.

Echo chambers are not only a beast of the Internet. They can happen anywhere that information is projected. The Internet has made this exchange of information more rapid and large scale. This is why echo chambers are more common in people who consume media solely from the Internet. The danger lies in online algorithms filtering content for consumers that will in turn have no exposure to conflicting opinions or content. It is healthy to dabble in both sides of any spectrum to see the point of view of "the other side." To avoid echo chambers, seek news from multiple different sources from different perspectives. 

EOTO 2 - Gatekeeping in Modern Media

The term "gatekeeping" is commonly used among millennials as a term to describe someone making judgments. The person making judgments about someone in this context is the "gatekeeper." This contemporary usage of the word is amusingly inaccurate. Gatekeeping is defined by Mass Communication Theory as "the process of selecting, and then filtering, items of media that can be consumed within the time or space that an individual happens to have." 

Gatekeeping is associated with different forms of power such as selecting different types of news to a consumer, brokering and storing information, and controlling to access networks. These networks can be anything from social media to mainstream news. Provided by UMN Library, gatekeepers are people in a position of power who decide which messages are produced, what they contain, where they are placed, and who places them.

As humans, we gate keep information inherently to filter out information that we don't need. We consume data that is relevant to us and ignore billions of data points. This helps us maintain our personal sanity. While we gate keep for ourselves, the information and media that we consume has been already "gatekept" for us. Gatekeeping has evolved to become the center of media's role in our public lives.

Gatekeeping is most commonly used in news. Editors and journalists filter content for publication, content that is tailored for viewers. While the content that consumers view that has been filtered by information tech companies, news companies, and social media firms is very important, the content that we as viewers see is also something that should be highlighted. Gatekeeping is a form of "neutral censorship" that is normally viewpoint neutral, but gatekeeper biases create hubs for partisan selection of media. This is the danger in gatekeeping if it is left unchecked. Companies gatekeeping information should be kept under strict scrutiny to minimize propaganda and avoid controlling people's opinions.

Privacy Has Become a Luxury, Not a Right

The TED Talk "How To Avoid Surveillance... With Your Phone In Your Pocket" by Christopher Soghoian raises the significant issue of major privacy breaches within telecommunications by the government. These breaches come from surveillance that has been wired into the core of our telephone networks. Soghoian furthers that they are also wired for surveillance first. The difference that separates telephone companies from Silicon Valley companies is that the Silicon Valley companies have grown to build strong encryption technology to counter said surveillance. Does this mean we are safe?

Soghoian argues that after "100 years of being able to listen to any phone call," governments are not happy that they are being locked out of people's private information (Soghoian). He posits that tech companies have democratized encryption and privacy, something that governments are upset about because these features are built into Silicon Valley smartphones by default. While surveillance of communication can be beneficial for national security, it comes at a cost.

This surveillance feature built into many forms of communication is something that compromises the integrity of entire systems when breached. These systems connect millions of individuals and can hold important private information. This is also the problem with backdoors. With backdoors, there is no way to control "whether it'll be used by your side or the other side" (Soghoian). To prevent the bad guys to accessing our information, the good guys' operation must also be restricted. The alternative to this is mass surveillance and authoritarian ruling. 

In order to protect your information, try to use an application that has enhanced encryption. Apps such as iMessage and FaceTime owned by Apple and WhatsApp owned by Facebook provide protected services that make spying on communications extremely difficult. 

Roger's Diffusion Theory and The Personal Computer

The personal computer is without doubt one of the most important communication technologies to affect modern society. It enables anyone with access to a computer and internet to find and use massive amounts of data. Through Roger's Diffusion Theory, we are going to analyze the rate at which the personal computer spread and find out who falls into the category of adopters.

Innovators: This group takes up a mere 2.5 percent of the personal computer adopters. These innovators include the founders and early employees of some of the Silicon Valley tech giants. They were the first to own and buy the product. This group is obtaining the PC during the early 1970s. 

Early Adopters: With the introduction of better software and operating systems, more people become willing to invest in a personal computer. In 1984, the Macintosh operating system wiped out all non Mac and PC manufacturers. With the ease of use in application packages and shortcuts, consumers were not required to know code to execute programs.

Early Majority: During the 1990s , this 34% early majority began purchasing the personal computers of Microsoft at higher rates than any other manufacturers. With the introduction of the Internet in the late 1990s, PCs become even more viable as a household communication technology. People are now able to access hoards of data from the comfort of their own desk.

Late Majority: The late majority consists of people who did not necessarily see a need for the personal computer but decided to purchase one after the increase in appeal from the the early majority. This group consists of some of the younger generations who were considered to be "tech savvy," but they may have been skeptical about the technology.

Laggards: The laggards make up the remaining 16% of people who waited or did not ever purchase a personal computer. This group most likely consists of some of the older generations and technophobes. The laggards saw personal computers as a waste of time and money and preferred older methods of obtaining information. To this day, there are still many people who do not own a computer, even as laptops have replaced the need for many desktops. 

YouTube and Its Thousands of Terabytes of Videos (EOTO Response)

 Each second of the day, an hour of video is being uploaded to YouTube. This means that two and a half gigabytes of video are uploaded to the site every second. This is a massive amount of content stored in the form of data for anyone with internet access to find. According to their stats, YouTube warehouses hold a capacity of over four-hundred-thousand terabytes of file storage. How did the now Google owned company reach such a massive scale?

YouTube is a video sharing site free to anyone with an account. It holds millions of videos ranging on many different topics. Since its creation in 2005, YouTube has become one of the most popular video streaming sites in the world. Its content comes almost solely from its users, another reason as to why the site is so popular. GCF Global furthers that the site's visitors watch over 6 billion hours of video each month. People who have ever seen a video online have probably seen a video from the YouTube platform because its popularity has grown so substantially.

The emergence of YouTube as a social media giant has had many effects on communication in general. It has led to easy access to information. Many YouTube videos provide tutorials and lectures. Others are an amazing source of entertainment. People of all ages find media that they can enjoy on the site. User generated content has changed the media industry because individuals have more freedom and opportunity to create videos. This in turn allows for widespread advertising and user earnings. YouTube currently is a platform that awards successful channels with earnings. However, we will always remember the site as the expressive place to find videos that can distract us from the struggles of everyday life.

The Printing Press Is the Most Important Invention in Communication Technology (EOTO)

The printing press was a revolutionary piece of technology which transformed the world of information and knowledge. Printing caused revolutions, mixed societal structure, and changed the world politically and economically for the better. For these reasons, I think that the invention of the printing press was the most revolutionary invention in communication technology.

A replica of the first printing press

The first form of European moveable type was created by Johannes Gutenberg, a german goldsmith who was exiled to France where he spent over ten years perfecting his printing press. While there is dispute over who created the earliest printing press, the Gutenberg press was the most efficient and became a widespread piece of machinery at alarmingly fast rates. In only fifty years after its introduction, hundreds of European cities used the printing press invented by Gutenberg. 

The preceding Chinese version of the printing press used carved wooden blocks to stamp characters in ink onto paper. Gutenberg's printing press utilized about three hundred lead castings of individual letters. These molds were arranged to be stamped onto pressed paper, a process which was repeated quickly. Gutenberg created his own ink to properly compliment the metal stamps. History.com provides that he even pressed his own paper using a wine press. The first product of Gutenberg's invention was a bible. The bible was printed in Latin and almost two hundred copies of the book were produced from the printing press. This version of the bible is known as Gutenberg's Bible.

The a copy of the Gutenberg Bible

Now the question remains, why is the printing press so important? What elements of its impact make it more revolutionary than the internet or computer? The spread of the printing press meant that we would see the first worldwide spread of ideas. There was a mass production of information. Global news networks popped up, texts were translated and spread throughout the world, ancient artifacts and fragments of history were now easily preserved and expanded. Prior to the press, books were hand copied and written by scribes. One manuscript cost almost as much as a house. When printing eliminated the need for multiple scribes and hours of writing, knowledge and literacy became something of the common man. The upper class no longer held the monopoly on information.

In addition to making information much more accessible to the lower class, increased printing of information accelerated movements and revolutions. The Renaissance movement was thrusted into Mannerism. The Scientific Revolution benefited from scientists printing and sharing their findings across the globe. Enlightenment Era political ideologies were printed on pamphlets and newspapers. They changed the political structures of many countries, stirring revolutions in the Americas. Economic interactions changed with the ability to mass produce in a different medium. Records and exchange history were easily documentable.

To conclude, without the printing press and the rapid expanse of information accessibility, the revolutionary exchange of information would not have happened. This means the world of technology would have been slowed and isolated. The internet is a close second to the printing press, but is the later, more modern version of the older technology. Without the printing press, history would have been slowed substantially.

 

The Massive Shift in Anti-War Popularity

The historic draft card burnings during the Vietnam War were arguably the strongest symbols of anti-war sentiment in sixties and seventies. The Vietnam War lasted for twenty years, and strong anti-war protests persisted throughout most of the war. Additionally, the media covered and backed most of these protests, and the two dominated the public cover of the war being a terrible mistake. With all of this news coverage and prominence back then, why is has dissent diminished so heavily?

Yesterday's Vietnam is today's Middle East. The United States became involved in the Iraq War in 2003. After pulling troops in 2011, Obama redeployed American troops in Iraq in 2014. In that year and the next few to come, anti-war sentiment was almost non-existent. Media covered the events of this war religiously and mainstream media failed to denounce it. Additionally, the Afghan conflict which lasted for over eighteen years received backing by most Americans and the media because of a burning hatred for terrorist organizations like Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Both of these Middle-Eastern conflicts were foreign wars just like the Vietnam War. Where is the dissent now?

While mainstream media fails to recognize it, the anti-war opinion is clearly voiced in two sites in particular. Before this week, I had never heard of them because mainstream news covers only one side of armed conflict. Primarily, The American Conservative is an interesting site because a common stereotype directed at Conservatives is warmongering. This site, along with Antiwar.com are prime examples of strong dissenting voices that are suppressed by mainstream news. These sources emphasize restraint and awareness for covering war. They are part of the modern day anti-war movement, a movement that has little backing currently but should be given more spotlight in mainstream news. A purely one-sided sentiment which does not denounce foreign war is a dangerous stance.

The Internet is The Modern Marketplace of Ideas (8 Values Post)

As consumers, we are always looking for the best products for the best prices. This is an inherent part of business, one in which every member of society is looking to maximize profit. The economic marketplace is full of products, ideas, information and services, some of which are better than others. These superior products sell better than inferior ones, and this competition drives producers to push their limits to make a profit. This idea is known as the "Marketplace of Ideas" and denounces censorship while arguing that truth will win over falsehood in a free competition of ideas.

A chart from Stodd's Learning Blog depicting the "marketplace of ideas"

Currently, the most prevalent hub that facilitates an extremely wide range of ideas is the Internet. The Internet allows for people to connect around the world and exchange ideas, services, and a multitude of goods. Individuals can shamelessly express themselves, voice their opinions, and promote their own personal interest, whether that be a point of view or business. Here, competition is the judge of truth and deception. In other words, the Internet is a modern marketplace of ideas. 

Notable philosophies from scholars such as John Stuart Mill and John Milton disagree with governments regulating this marketplace of opinions and ideas. Their arguments lie primarily in the fact that the government does not always know the truth, and that the best way to reveal the truth is through competition in the marketplace of ideas. In this case, protecting the open flow of concepts in the Internet is of paramount importance, and the government ought not to be involved in this exchange. 

Competition improves the marketplace, including the producers and consumers

A particular example of government encroachment is in the 1997 Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union case. This dispute arose from a 1996 act known as the Communications Decency Act which attempted to regulate primarily pornographic material, but could have been expanded to envelope more spheres of Internet interaction. The Supreme Court unanimously struck it down as a violation of the First Amendment as it restricted content protected under freedoms of speech and expression. 

 

This precedent is very important to the modern marketplace of ideas because it treated speech and exchanges on the Internet as First Amendment freedoms of speech. Had this case gone the opposite way, almost anything could eventually be lawfully censored by the government. Keeping the internet as a hub of ideas will both propel markets and encourage competition and drive which will lead to greater quality for consumers.

Facial Recognition In The Hands of Big Brother (Extra Credit)

Picture a dystopian world, one in which cameras lace every street and scanners survey every human being. Simply by looking at your face, a facial recognition system can identify who you are. Privacy is no longer a right, but a luxury. This type of society sounds dreadful. Luckily, there are people such as Joy Buolamwini fighting to place restrictions on big tech companies attempting to use unfettered facial recognition. The documentary "Coded Bias" covers the work of individuals trying to hold the daunting power identity verification at bay. 

"Coded Bias" directed by Shalini Kantayya

How does face recognition work? These systems begin with programs which scan a human face and identify the human sample. Currently in China, face recognition is required to make transactions and use the internet. This means that the Chinese government has access to millions of people's information and can identify citizens through security cameras. This process is well known by the Chinese and the rest of the world. The most startling comparison for myself in "Coded Bias" was the fact that the difference between Chinese facial recognition and American facial recognition is that Chinese citizens know that they are being monitored.

A facial recognition program being used for surveillance

Anyone who has had a Facebook or Instagram account is at risk to these scans. Big tech companies hold information about consumers and can pair a face to these statistics. Looking at Facebook in particular, the site uses facial recognition to notify users if they are in another person's post. Additionally, transit systems hold high-resolution photos of citizens that can be used for state sponsored surveillance. The harsh reality is that if organizations are using this type of recognition in social media, facial recognition could turn sour in the wrong hands. 

Violent Riots Do NOT Equate to Protesting

Recent events in violent Black Lives Matter protests have shown that no one is above the law (except Nancy Pelosi evidently). While most BLM protests are peaceful and lawful assemblies protected by the first amendment, there are still quite a few violent protests that haunt American cities. If violent protests are often called forms of expression, are they legal? Absolutely not. 

A photo from USA Today of arsonist at BLM protests

While mainstream media rarely condones and even covers examples of BLM violence in current events, The Washington Times provided an example of rioters responding to police shooting an armed man in Lancaster, PA. "Activists" started fires, threw bricks through windows, and looted multiple businesses in response to police action. Media covers the peaceful side of protests, but these acts of violence should receive equal attention and strict condemnation. Destruction of property, arson, and theft are criminal acts and are not to be confused with assembly or freedom of expression. In fact, it is an insult to the law and peaceful protests to even compare the two.

BLM protestors and police unite in NJ

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Peaceable assemblies include peaceful protests, not violent acts like looting and pillaging. The Constitution condones said violent protests, and these rioters should be punished harshly under the law. Change is made through nonviolent and symbolic resistance, a sense of strong unity that shows the world that the resistance is above their oppressors. Violence only breeds violence, and this fire will only be put out when activists turn away from looting and America condones it publicly. 

This has been Mac, please come back!

The Four Most Notable SCOTUS Case Decisions

 The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has the "ultimate jurisdiction over all laws within the United States" (History.com). This means that they have a great amount of power in United States government activity, especially in setting precedents for later cases. Established in 1789, they have grown to review over seven-thousand cases each year. Of these thousands since their creation, the Supreme Court has made certain notable decisions. These are in my opinion, the four most significant SCOTUS case decisions.

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

While the details of the case are nothing special, this case led directly to Chief Justice John Marshall setting the precedent of judicial review, a principle in which SCOTUS would review the constitutionality of law created by Congress. In this case, John Marshall single-handedly defined the relationship between the judicial branch and the federal government. Judicial review is a crucial check over Congress which is used currently.

2. Dredd Scott v. Sanford (1857)

In contrast to Marbury vs. Madison, the contents of this case are of great importance. In this instance, Dredd Scott was a slave in Missouri until he fled to the free state of Illinois. He later claimed in Missouri that his residency in Illinois made him a free man. The respondent, Sanford, provided that Scott was a slave and therefore property, not a citizen. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Sanford, furthering that Scott did not have the right to sue the Federal Court. Justice Taney then ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that slaves were not free in free states.

3. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Brown v. Board is arguably just as an important case as Dredd Scott v. Sanford in dealing with racial issues. Multiple parties argued that denial of white public schools and facilities that were prohibited to people of color was an illegal form of segregation, especially because the colored facilities were of greatly inferior quality. Local courts upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine. In an unanimous decision, SCOTUS ruled that the "separate but equal" schools were of different quality and unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp vs. Ohio surfaced after a woman was convicted of possessing something illegal, a conviction obtained with an illegal search by police. Police originally had the intent of searching for a fugitive when they came across her illegal materials. Mapp vs. Ohio determined that the materials seized by the officers were protected from seizure under the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant that evidence obtained illegally could not be used in cases. 

In conclusion, the SCOTUS has great power to determine the course of justice in the United States. Even though they have made many unexpected and immoral decisions, they are in many ways modern guardians of the people against tyrannical laws. 


This has been Mac, please come back!

Who Knew All of This New News?

Often times, while we are engulfed in our daily routine of checking social media, we see snippets of current events. The most notable sites that many young users get their news from are Snapchat and Instagram. Unfortunately, users can post whatever they want from here, and truly reliable sources are scarce. I fall victim to believing in a fair amount of fake news on the Internet, especially some on social media. Here are five reliable and consistent sources that I look to when I need to stay informed.


1. The Wall Street Journal

For as long as I can remember, my father has ordered the paper copy of the 

WSJ. He wakes up with a cup of coffee and walks down to the driveway to get his newspaper. When he's finished, and I am bored while eating, he will recommend a few articles for me to read. The organization has traditionally been an outstanding neutral site. With current events causing news sites to polarize, WSJ has stayed mostly nonpartisan. Historically, the site is largely business focused (hence the name), but it also covers daily breaking news.

2. NPR

National Public Radio is a very well known and accessible source of news. They cover a wide variety on their website, but I prefer to listen to the radio. I first started listening to NPR in the car on Saturdays on the way to soccer games. Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me was always on in the mornings, and I remember them cracking jokes about current events. Currently, it is a more left leaning source, but I tune in to the more neutral BBC live updates hosted on the network.

3. BBC

The British Broadcasting Corporation is a public broadcasting service that is popular in Europe and the United States. This news company is often hosted by NPR. It was founded shortly after WWI and is currently gaining popularity because it is a very non-partisan source by modern standards. Aside from the appeal of their accents, I grew up listening to the British network during breaking news breaks on NPR.

4. Al-Jazeera Media Network

Al Jazeera is a state-owned news broadcaster based in Qatar. It is a popular Middle-Eastern current affairs and events site. Most describe the network as a site that provides a moderate Western face compared to most Islamic news sources based in the Middle East. My experience with the site comes from using it to research and find cards for debate cases. Specifically, my team used many of their articles to support arguments under the "Two-State Solution" public forum debate topic.

5. The Economist

I have many good memories from reading The Economist, particularly using the graphics for school collages and eventually rooting through the magazines to find funny comics. The Economist is an internationally popular weekly news journal. As the name suggests, The Economist covers primarily economic and business events, but it also has many articles covering weekly news.

This has been my top five news sources. The main trend here is that I was introduced to these sites at a younger age and have continued to check in with them regularly (especially the cartoons). Hopefully these five stay credible and non-partisan.

This has been Mac, please come back!