Final Blog

 Technology is more prevalent today than it has ever been. With this there are many good things and bad things that exist because technology exists. It is easy to exclusively look at technology as good or evil but it is much more gray than that.

    There are some facets of modern technology that have little to no downsides such as air-conditioners, lightbulbs, and microwaves. However, we have become so used to these simple conveninces that it is now practically impossible to live without them. In my lifetime, I have never had to live a day without these technologies at my disposal. This means if they were abrubtly taken away, I would really have no idea what to do. This complete reliance on technology is completely unhealthy. 

    Cell phones, despite making it easier than ever to talk to people, have destroyed conversation. It is completely common to be at a dinner with friends where no one says a word. Not because the food is delicious, but because everyone seems to be much more interested in what's on their phone instead of what their friends have to say. If we continue down this route, people will completely forget what it was
like to actually talk to people!

    My personal relationship with technology is fairly healthy I'd say. I'm not on any sort of social media and I don't have games on my phone. I still use my phone to text, call, play music, take pictures, and Google things. I use my computer to work on school assignments. I use my TV to watch movies and play video games. If it was up to me, I'd get rid of my phone. My parents have already shot down this idea multiple times because if I don't have a phone they think they wouldn't be able to contact me. I believe if I did not have a phone the only thing I would really miss is the ability to play music whenever I want. I wouldn't want to get rid of my TV because I like movies too much, and I need my laptop to graduate from college. I also obviously use all of the every-day appliances that everyone else uses. 

    I say that my relationship with technology is healthy because at least once a month I take some time to detox. This term is usually used to refer to a break from social media but as someone who is already not on social media, I use the term as a break from all technology for a certain amount of time. It's like being selectively Amish. Sometimes the detox only lasts for a couple hours, but sometimes it lasts for up to a week (usually depending on how ahead on assignments I am). I usually just take this extra time to read, but it's always I nice little break and I feel better during it.

    I would say that my friends and even my family are more "plugged in" that I am. Most of my friends are on their phones for crazy amounts of time each day. Even my dad is on Facebook or Instagram for hours on end. My mom isn't really on her phone that much but she does watch a lot of HGTV. I definitely don't think being so online makes any of them worse people (I'm biased because I choose to hang out with them). 

    My digital footprint is probably smaller than the average American's. When you Google my name, I don't pop up. A bunch of people who share my name and have accomplished more than me pop up. If you look me up on Instagram or Tik Tok you can find my old accounts. There's nothing in any way incriminating (that I know of) on either of them so I figure there's no harm leaving them up even if I don't have the apps installed. I have a Facebook and Twitter acount but I don't think I've ever used either of those so there is nothing to report from there. Nothing about my digital footprint is negative, and I would have no qualms about an employer seeing everything that exists about me on the internet (unless they can see my search history, I have to look up how to spell the word "together" more than I'd like to admit).

    The point I want to make is that technology is not bad. Personally, I believe that our recent over-reliance on technology is very unhealthy, but that is an opinion. Overall, technology has changed the world in a mostly positive way. However, light cannot exist without darkness, and good cannot exist without evil.

    

Blog #11

     The concepts of online influencers, whistleblowers, mainstream media, and alternative media are all very hot topics in the field of communication. Some of these have existed for decades while others have only just come into existence. All of them are sure to be important for the future of communication as we know it.

    The term "online influencers" refers to people with large followings on social media that hold influence over their followers. The first online influencers were people known as "Mommy Bloggers." These women shared tips online about raising young kids. They gained large followings of other mothers looking for advice 

    Online influencers can use their platforms to spread information. Like all information, this could either have positive benefits or negative consequences. Some influencers use their platforms in positive ways to build others up, while other influencers spread hate speech and start petty online fights. Most of the influencers who do spark fights end up recieving backlash from other people online and are often scorned by the general public (think Logan Paul). However, some do very positive things like charity work for organizations such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

    Whistleblower is a term used to refer to government employees that expose government wrongdoings. Obviously, these people are pretty frowned upon by the government but their existance is vital. Some famous whistleblowers include Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Felt, A. Ernest Fitzgerald, and Coleen Rowley. Each of these individuals exposed some sort of crime the government was committing. Without whistleblowers, there would be no one to keep the government in check when they breach our freedom.

    Mainstream and alternative media are the two types of news common today. Mainstream media refers to the news sources that the general public uses such as newspapers, news networks, and radio news. Alternative media refers to news that is a little less known about such as podcasts, ebooks, websites, and magazines. Mainstream media usuaully has a higher budget than alternative media so they usually have better coverage of big events. However, it seems that most mainstream media has some sort of agenda to push. You're either getting republican news or democrat news. Alternative media is the only place where it is possible to just find news. Alternative media isn't tied to the governemnt at all so they can just report events as they happen. 

Blog #8

    These four videos are all about cybersecurity. cybersecurity is a huge issue right now and it has never been more important to protect the few rights online we have left. All of these speakers made excellent points about very important current topics.

    Catherine Crump's TED talk discussed the use of automatic license plate scanners and other technologies to track the location of innocent Americans. These technologies exist to find people who may have been commited of wrongdoing. However, in doing so they end up tracking more innocent people than actual criminals. Some people may dismiss this as a harmless side-effect of tracking criminals. Police have been keeping this information on innocents "in case it is useful later." This is where the problem lies, in the storing of information gethered on people who have done nothing wrong. This is an obvious invasion of American privacy.

    Juan Enriquez's TED talk was about the consequences of a term he called electronic tattoos. He said drew a comparison between online actions that everyone can see and tattoos. Tattoos send messages about a person before they can say a word. So too, do electronic tattoos. One way to guard against this is to never post something you wouldn't want employers in twenty years to see. It doesn't matter if you delete it or if it's on a private story because it will be seen. Juan claims that immortality may not be a good thing. Sure, everyone wants to be remembered, on paper, but sometimes there are things that should just be forgotten. In the age of the internet, this has proven to be impossible.

    Christopher Soghoian's TED talk provided valuable information on which services can and cannot be wiretapped. This was the first piece of information about internet privacy that I actually found comforting. Apparently, it is somewhat difficult to wiretap FaceTime and Apple's Messages. I primarily use these services so this was wonderful news to recieve. 

    Darieth Chisolm's TED talk was about the horrible effects of revenge porn. This woman's life was almost ruined by revenge porn and she is now using her platform to speak out against it as well as raise awareness about the shockingly relaxed laws regarding it. There are barely any laws in our country regarding this all to common act. Punishments that do exist are all miniscule compared to the weight of the crime. Something should be done immediately in the governemnt to combat this.

Blog #10

     The section at the very beginning of the documentary about AlphaGo was jarring. The human race put up its best competitor in the game of Go against an AI program. The AI came out on top. The ramifications of this are that AI could best any given member of the human race in Go. This leads to the logical question, what else can AI do better than us?

    Shockingly enough, there are pros to data mining. The idea is that large companies such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook collect data on people so they can advertise better to those people based on things they know they like. This means that when a person goes online they are more likely to be advertised something they would buy. Personally, I would rather be advertised something that I am likely to buy than something I definitely would not buy. 

    There are significantly more cons of data mining than there are pros. It is a terrifying fact that large corporations know absolutely everything about us. I am this close to getting rid of all technology. However, it is impossible not to be watched because we have gotten to the point where technology is an absolute necessity. I am unable to get rid of my laptop because I'm typing this blog on it and my grade depends on that. I want to get rid of my phone but I wouldn't be able to call my parents, or listen to music, or take pictures. Technology has gotten so incredibly practical that it is now impossible to live without. My data is being collected and there is not a single thing I can do about it. We live in a modern dystopia and it is horrifying. 

    Identity theft has never been easier. There is software that gathers everything from which words a person is likely to use to how they walk. If someone wanted to steal someone's identity and they had access to this it would be so incredibly easy. An AI can send texts that sound like something I came up with, They can make deep fakes that look like a video of me doing something. There are zero ways to protect against it. They could already exist and I would have no way of even knowing. If a corporation wanted to steal my identity, they could have already done it.

    

Blog #6

     It seems like the government always wants to be at war with someone. Of course, this is not limited to the US government and applies to most militant governments around the world. In schools we are taught from a very young age that war sparks industry and that some of the best inventions come out of a time of war. Why is it though, that our government specifically seems so hell-bent on going to war with everyone?

    There are probably a variety of reasons that all pile on top of each other. The most obvious one is the third exception in the Near rule. This exception states that prior restraint is unconstitutional except for when there are threats to national security in wartime. That means the government can silence people much easier when we are at war. This is a likely cause for the United States' propensity for constant conflict. 

    Websites such as Antiwar or The American Conservative specialize in broadcasting voices that speak out against the government. These websites say things that are contrary to anything you'll hear in the news. This seems to be something the government does not like. While the government Constitutionally cannot stop them from publishing this, they can do something debatably worse. They can ignore them, making their loudest shouts sound like mere whispers. 

    News channels love to feature very opinionated guests. Some people (not myself) find guests with very democratic opinions appearing on Fox News to be very entertaining because they just bicker for the entire allotted time. It's strange though, that there never seem to be anti-war voices appearing on any of these news channels. It'd probably be just as "entertaining" to hear someone very pro-war and someone very anti-war debate over who is correct. The reason they don't ever appear is because the government is actively trying to silence anti-war voices. There is no problem with newscasters presenting their opinions on matters, but the second someone chooses to speak out against the government's behavior, they are shunned. 

   

Blog #9

 Gatekeeping is a somewhat recent internet phenomenon. Gatekeeping is the act of limiting access to certain knowledge. An example of gatekeeping would be when Kylie Jenner refused to tell her followers what her favorite drink was because she was worried it would sell out. Any instance of keeping information secret can now be referred to as gatekeeping.

    

    Gatekeeping's most severe effect is on those suffering from mental health conditions. People diagnosed with certain conditions have gone to tell undiagnosed people that their struggles don't exist because they aren't diagnosed with anything. This completely invalidates their problems just because they may not be as bad as someone else's.   This is absolutely not ok.  

 Gatekeeping is used as a term to shame. If someone claims you are gatekeeping something, they are trying to goad you into sharing information with them. Lasy year this term spiraled out of control. There were entire corners of the internet who's sole focus was to expose gatekeepers and "gatebreak" information. Gatebreaking is when someone who has access to knowledge that someone else is gatekeeping decides to publish that knowledge so that everyone has access to it. In most cases, gatebreaking is not a bad thing. It allows people who may not be a part of certain niche subcultures to understand why people enjoy something. 

    An example of gatekeeping and gatebreaking would be this. Say you wanted to watch the latest Marvel movie. If you ask me if you should watch it and I respond "You wouldn't get it, you need to read all of these comics to really understand it." That is gatekeeping. Gatebreaking would be if I explained what happened in all those comics to you so that you could better understand that movie.

    Overall, the implications of "exposing gatekeepers" are negative. People have the right to privatize information. If someone tries to gatebreak your social security number that is obviously a huge threat. Some information is just better kept private.

    Recently, gatekeeping mostly applies to drivel on social media. However, it used to be a term applied mostly to news outlets. If a news outlet was gatekeeping a story they would likely just discuss other stories while burying ones that may go against their agenda.

    Last year, a large amount of people started gatekeeping journalism. This is just genuine censorship. People were claiming that to be a journalist, one had to go through college and be hired at a news company. All other journalism was considered by them to be illegitamite. Essentially, these people were trying to destroy citizen journalism. Citizen journalism is a huge branch of information that absolutely can not afford to be discounted.

    The moral of the story is to stop everything surrounding gatekeeping. Stop trying to "expose gatekeepers." Stop gatekeeping information that should be public. Stop gatebreaking information that should be private. Stop discouraging any form of journalism. This entire issue could be solved if people just told the truth about information that everyone should have access to. Obviously there are a couple things such as social security numbers, banking info, ad mothers' maiden names that should stay private. But for the most part, people should just tell people things they want to know.

    The use of the word gatekeeping on social media is a bit of a contortion of the actual word and the actual problems in journalism that it entails. In journalism, the theory of gatekeeping refers to when news outlets hide stories under other, potentially less important, stories. An example of this is when certain news networks were not covering the Hunter Biden laptop incident because it happened six months before the election and it may have changed the course of it. This is an example of actie tampering with the polls by news networks. Gatekeeping theory proves to be a legitimate, huge problem in the world of journalism and media in general.

    

Blog Post #5

 The radio is a very interesting technology. It was invented by Guglielmo Marconi but many people helped him along the way. While he is credited with the invention, most of the later improvements upon it were not his own.

Originally it could only transmit Morse code. Speech transmission was not added until later on. Marconi did not have the technical prowess to add speech transmission. However, Reginald Fessenden did. He was the man who brought speech to the radio. He was also the first person to transmit his voice via radio. This earned him the title of the father of radio.

Radio became prevalent very quickly. Universities started offering radio-based classes. Some churches were even doing radio sermons. The rise of radio happened almost overnight. Radios were projected to appear in every home in America.

Before the radio, the government did not have any sort of platform to speak to everyone all at once. The radio provided them this platform. They could make important announcements such as election winners, law changes, and Supreme Court case outcomes.

The radio was also used very prominently in WWII to communicate between troops and let people know if their loved ones died in the war. It was also used in this war as a way for generals to communicate with one another over long distances. The trouble came when enemies tried to intercept radio transmissions. This happened on all sides of the war so everyone involved started speaking in advanced codes.

    The positive of this technology is that it was the fastest way of communication at the time. It also enabled communication from a distance that was never before possible. Listeners could be in different states or, later on, even different countries. 

    The negative of the radio is that, in the war, enemies would use the radio to listen in on private wartime conversations with tactical plans embedded. This did not happen from any one party, it was going on all across the board. 

In conclusion, the radio is a phenomenal invention that changed the course of communication as we know it. Without the radio, we likely never would have invented modern technologies such as the smartphone and my mother would not be able to listen to iHeart Radio on her way to work in the morning. 

Blog Post #7

 

    Carrier Pigeons are actually a wonderful example of the diffusion theory. The launch phase happened in ancient Egypt. It caught on relatively quickly because there was pretty much no other fast form of long-distance communication available at the time. 

The Early Adopters were civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. These ancient civilizations started using carrier pigeons pretty quickly. For civilizations that all started at vastly different times, they all adopted carrier pigeons around the same time after Greece popularized them.

The Early Majority crowd spans hundreds of years: all the way from the Middle Ages, to the Renaissance, to about the early 1900s. This just encompasses everyone between the Ancient Civilizations and WWI. This was when the concept of the carrier pigeon was in its prime.

The Late Majority was everyone who used carrier pigeons in WWI. They were still very prevalent but other technologies that could replace carrier pigeons were starting to blossom. Carrier pigeons were still considered essential for boats, tanks, and fighter jets to carry in case of emergency.

The Laggards were the people who used carrier pigeons in WWII. There were still a good number of people using them but they were clearly on their way out with the rise of technologies like the radio. Just as video killed the radio star, radio killed the carrier pigeon. 

    Nowadays, no one uses carrier pigeons. They are just another dead technology like fax machines or Blackberries. The carrier pigeon certainly had the longest hold on long-distance communication. In the end, it did not survive the rise of radio or telephones. 

    The only people who can be considered late adopters are the people who were not alive in the heyday of carrier pigeons. There are not really any downsides to carrier pigeons. They seem to only have had a positive impact on the world. The positive definitely outweighs the negative because there isn't really a negative. Overall, carrier pigeons are awesome!

Blog Post #2

     I just read an article on the Supreme Court. It was pretty interesting and I learned quite a bit. My favorite piece of information in the article is that William Howard Taft is the only person to have served as President and Chief Justice. I am a huge William Howard Taft fan so this made me happy. I also learned that the Chief Justice resigns over trials of impeachment of the US President. This makes total sense, I just never thought about who would be in charge of that. 

    The most important takeaway point about the Supreme Court is all of the incredibly important cases they have determined. They have established laws over issues such as abortion, segregation, and anti-sodomy. Without the Supreme Court, these important issues as well as other similar ones would likely have been dealt with in completely different ways.

    The most surprising thing I learned was that the Supreme Court Justices were nominated by the President. Part of the Justices' job includes keeping the president in check so this seems like it could potentially be a problem. Granted, the decision must be confirmed or denied by the Senate so that takes away a little bit of power. Still, this feels like a rare instance where the president might have just a bit too much power. I may be missing something but here is a hypothetical: What if the Chief Justice steps down. The president picks a new chief justice and picks some guy he's known for forever. The senate says "This guy seems great" so they approve him. A year later, the president does something pretty wrong and he probably shouldn't be the president anymore. They have an impeachment trial but, uh oh, the guy in charge of impeaching the president is his best friend and would never do something like that. This means a bad president who should be out of office serves the rest of his term because his buddy has his back. The government people are probably smarter than I am, and I'm sure that's not actually how the law works. But if it is, and there are no flaws in my argument then someone should do something about this.

    The last question is "How did the video change the way you thought of the Supreme Court?" Personally, I did not watch a video and instead read the article. Therefore, the video did not change my thoughts on the Supreme Court whatsoever because I did not watch the video. The article, however, made me view the Supreme Court as a kind of final option. It's like when there's an argument at school and you ask the teacher. Their word is final and they are right about everything. I like the Supreme Court!

Blog Post #1

     I am chronically offline. My screen time on my phone for the past week is under an hour a day. I am off all social media. The biggest thing I do on my phone is play solitaire. This may sound like a good thing because my generation is so plugged in. However, I am a Communication student and I'm critically behind on the news so this is not a good thing. This blog post is going to be very difficult because I consume very little news. 

    My most significant news source has to be word of mouth. Most things I hear about current events are just from other people talking about them. I don't know what I'd link to for this since it's more of a concept. This is probably not an entirely credible source of news sometimes because the people I hear it from could just say anything and how would I know if they were lying. I do like this form of news better than the other ones though because I can ask questions. If I don't understand why something in the news is happening, I can ask the guy telling me about it and maybe then I'll understand it. Overall, this is my favorite kind of news and the one I consume the most because it is the most personal. 

   The place where I get most of my news from the internet is Youtube. There is actually a lot of interesting news on there if you know where to look. I'm not on YouTube very much but usually, when I am I can find something interesting there to talk about. Since YouTube is a collection of a bunch of different news sources, there is pretty much always something interesting on there. I'm not sure if it's considered a traditional news website but it's still probably my favorite website to get news from. The thing that makes me like it more than other news options is that it has news on things I care about like movies and books as opposed to just politics. 

    This source isn't really mine, it's more my parents, but I'll have to watch it with them sometimes so I put it on the list. Fox News is probably the biggest actual news source that I watch. I actually hate Fox News but I still end up watching it a little bit. I think that they don't provide very much "news." It seems like they provide mostly opinions and I don't like that. Sometimes I agree with their opinions just not the way they are presenting them as facts. I do not recommend Fox News at all and I only watch it because my parents do. 

    I have to clarify something for this next one so I don't get in trouble. The prompt for this blog said to include five sources of news and information. This source doesn't really have news but I'd argue it has more information than any of the other sources. This source is books. I read a lot of books. I wouldn't call them a news source, but the amount of information that can be gained from books is limitless. I definitely read more than I watch Fox News but I put books lower on the list since they aren't really news. I do recommend reading. Everyone wishes they read more so my advice is to just do that. 

    My last news source is IGN. IGN provides a lot of news that I am interested in. It is all nerd stuff like comic books, video games, and movies which is right up my alley. Usually, I just read their articles to get myself excited about upcoming movies or games. IGN is probably the most positive news source I consume. They post fun stories instead of important global problems. Personally, I prefer reading the fun things so IGN does well in my book. I'd definitely recommend it but only if you're already into nerd stuff. 

Blog Post #4

    Carrier Pigeons are a hallmark of communication. Humans have been using birds to send and receive messages as far back as Noah's Ark. After that, the Greeks used carrier pigeons to announce the results of the Olympic Games. Carrier pigeons had a very impactful effect on many ancient societies such as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Rome. It is unknown which one of them actually invented carrier pigeons.

    The first somewhat modern use of carrier pigeons was in New Zealand in 1896. They were about half as fast as modern aircraft. They were also heavily used in World War I. They delivered messages that saved lives! Mine-sweeping boats used to carry pigeons with the exact coordinates of the boat so that the sailors on it could be rescued. In World War I, German Marksmen were put in charge of exterminating enemy carrier pigeons. The idea was that, if they could cut off communications between parts of opposing armies, the armies would act in separate parts instead of as a unified force. 

    In World War II, carrier pigeons carried a lot more than information. They started carrying cameras and bombs. A scientist by the name of Skinner was tasked with figuring out a way to make bombs that could target enemy aircraft and battleships. For some reason, his solution was pigeons. In a lab, the pigeons would peck a picture of a battleship or plane and be rewarded with some seed. Once it was concluded this could work, pigeons were put inside missiles and tasked with pecking a screen when they saw a battleship. This guided the missiles precisely where to aim and the clever pigeons were rewarded with an explosive end in service of their country. This somewhat hilarious but surprisingly effective strategy was referred to as Project Pigeon. Pigeons also got promoted from transporting information to recording it. America strapped cameras to pigeons and had them fly over suspected enemy bases. Pigeons are a common animal with a low flight path so nothing they were doing seemed at all suspicious. Most information about this is still classified. 

    The impact of carrier pigeons on modern technology is huge. Before smartphones, telephones, and fax machines there was the carrier pigeon. If carrier pigeons never existed we may not have texting, emailing, or direct messaging. Carrier pigeons existed before newspapers and radios. For a while, carrier pigeons were almost the sole source of news and information transmission. This is an invention that definitely changed the world for the better. Carrier pigeons absolutely revolutionized communication as we know it. It is an invention with pretty much zero negative effects. Overall, carrier pigeons are the grandfathers of instant messaging. Communication as a whole walks in the footsteps of carrier pigeons. 

Blog Post #3

 All eight values of free expression are incredibly important. Free speech would not be truly free without all of them individually. However, the one that resonates with me the most is individual self-fulfillment. The freedom to express oneself is so incredibly important and so often taken for granted. If the government chooses our identities we are no better than robots. The freedom to express oneself in speech, thought, and text will never not be important. 

    Individual Sef-Fulfillment encompasses all aspects of creativity. Without we wouldn't have movies, television, or books because the creators of these would be unable to express themselves. Freedom of expression is the most important right for creatives because they cannot operate without it. When Covid reigned supreme we turned to the arts. Everyone started watching more TV, playing more video games, and reading more books. None of these would be available if the people who created them were not given freedom of expression. 

    A lot of people may argue that the freedom to "Protect Dissent" is their most important right. That is entirely fine and we are absolutely allowed to disagree. Criticizing the government is extremely important. Personally, this isn't a right I intend to exercise. I may disagree with the government but I'm not going to do anything about it. I think it's great when other people disagree with the government and voice their opinion but that's not really that important to me. I may think income tax is robbery, but I will do absolutely nothing to convince the government of my opinion. 

    Freedom of expression covers anything that can even remotely be considered art. This doesn't just mean nice art, it means provocative art, ugly art, and even modern art. It also covers performative art, written art, and spoken art. If I want to write poems about how the government is corrupt, I am completely allowed to because of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is so broad it quickly crosses into ground already covered by the seven other freedoms. If my poems criticize the government they are covered both under the freedom to self-actualize as well as the freedom to protect dissent. 
   

    A main proponent of the Self-Fulfillment freedom was C. Edwin Baker. In his book, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, he outlines his Liberty theory as opposed to the marketplace of idea theory that was and is still pretty common. His rationale is the entirety of the idea behind Self-Fulfillment. He believed that free speech didn't protect a so-called marketplace of idea but rather a more individual liberty protection. 

    It is important to choose our own identities. No one should pick these for us, especially not the government. Individual Self-Fulfillment means that an individual is allowed to find their own identity. It also boils down to basic freedom of speech. The argument is that we should have free speech simply because we deserve it. This is an argument I vehemently agree with. Free speech shouldn't have to be fought for because it's something no one should be able to take away. It's another human necessity like breathing or eating. Free speech is free because without we are not autonomous. If I can only say what someone tells me to say then I am not even really saying them. Free speech separates us from puppets  being forced by someone else to say words that aren't theirs.