Blog #12

Final Post: A Take on Technology

Technology has essentially taken over our lives and we have discussed plenty of instances of this in class, from the impact of new technological inventions to the impact AI has had on people's livelihoods and privacy.  Personally, I think that technology has become a big part of my life, but I don't think that I've let it consume me completely.  I have Snapchat, Instagram, and Tik Tok, but I have time limits on all three apps.  I allow myself to use each app everyday roughly for one hour and 30 minutes.  There are days where I follow this time limit, however there are also days where I decide that I want to be on these apps longer.  Even though I start out practicing good habits with my time management on my phone and social media, sometimes I fall into the addictive trap.  I've learned to resist the urge to keep scrolling on these apps, because as I've gotten older, I have realized that time goes by so quick, and I want to do productive and fun things in my life.  I feel that if I didn't have this mindset, I would miss out on so many memories and would miss out on making meaningful relationships too.  I don't want to walk around like a zombie and not pay attention to my surroundings and the people I love.  The world would be so bland and this startled me as I watched this video.  I may still be connected to my phone and may break my limit on my phone at times, but I certainly am glad that I'm not constantly posting or seeing others' content.  I have learned that posting on my social media accounts gives me so much anxiety, because I constantly worry about what people will think of the pictures or videos I post.  Therefore, I don't post a lot on any of the platforms I've listed, because I want to avoid being judged by people as much as I can.  I would definitely say that social media has made me insecure at times, because I believe that the beauty standards surrounding social media are simply unrealistic.  I want to avoid the chances of me feeling like I'm not enough in comparison to others, so that is another reason why I have a time limit for certain apps on my phone.  I think that a lot of individuals fall victim to social media's addictive cycle, and I see through myself, my friends, and my younger sisters just how damaging social media can be.  Hurtful comments or simply not looking like the people we see on social media can make us question our personalities and bodies.  I don't think it's fair to any of us to think that we must fit a certain category or post certain things to get more likes or followers.  I think social media can be an incredible platform to create change and to increase positivity across the world, but I think that more and more influencers need to show the more natural parts of themselves.  If social media continues to become a less judgmental place and if people show aspects of their true selves on there, I think that it will evolve to a place where people feel comfortable posting and can stay connected to friends and family by doing so.

Social media has been a source for educational purposes for me, especially on Tik Tok and Instagram, because I think that a lot of people post on these platforms to spread information about topics that aren't necessarily talked about as much as they should be.  Therefore, I am not bashing social media apps completely, because I do think that they can be valuable sources of information.  Yet, there are always exceptions, and it is always possible that people can post things that only share their opinion to swing people's views on situations inaccurately.  I think that it would be beneficial for all social media apps to have fact checking technology, that could prevent misinformation on posts from being spread over these platforms.  I get a lot of my news from these platforms, but sometimes I am skeptical if the sources used to provide this information are credible.  It's not always easy to know the difference between true and false, because with many societal issues there are thin lines that tend to get blurred.  So, having this technology implemented could help citizens gain access to information that is guaranteed to be factual.  This would be really awesome, because then people would be more knowledgeable of what is going on in the world around them and with people being more educated, more people would be able to stand up and understand what is right and wrong in society.  Social media can be a valuable news source, but it is very important to note that if we want change to be implemented in situations that are not right, we must get this information out in a clear, factual way.

I think that technology is awesome for everyone because we are capable of learning new things and can stay in contact with another, with just a push of a button.  Technology opens the doors to so many new opportunities, but it also opens the door to misinformation, insecurities, cyberbullying, and intense harassment.  I've already discussed misinformation and insecurities, which have affected me, my friends, and family.  I've had numerous conversations with people I know about how easy it is to be misinformed on the internet, because people are very good at making false information look real.  The cycle of fake news evolves as we pass along information that we think is true to others.  I know we have all been there, where we instinctively trust that information is true and are simply too lazy to check if the source is correct or not.  So once again, we all hate being misled, so check your sources before sending it along to your family and friends!  Unfortunately, I've also had many conversations about the insecurities created by either posting or looking at social media posts with the people I care about.  I don't think that this topic is talked about enough, but it is refreshing to see that influencers are being more transparent with their audiences.  I think that it is especially important for society to keep striving towards having no beauty standards, because younger children especially are so impressionable.  I have three younger sisters at home, and I don't want them to grow up and feel that they aren't accepted or shouldn't express themselves, because they don't look like every model or influencer.

I also believe that these beauty standards have resulted in cyberbullying, because people expect others to look a certain way and when they don't, people hide behind screens and bash them.  However, I'm sure many of these people who make these mean comments online are most likely insecure themselves because they feel pressured to feel a certain way and don't.  The internet and social media can be a scary place for everyone, and I think that it is especially important to teach the younger generations how to be safe online.  For instance, Sonia Bokhari is saving herself from the horrors of social media, because she has learned that not everyone is who they say they are on the internet, and she doesn't want to risk putting herself in harm's way.  I don't think that a lot of people know the dangers of being online, but I think we need to increase our internet safety awareness in classrooms from a very young age, because more and more young children are getting phones and social media.  I sense it with my youngest sister who is 9, she feels like if she doesn't have social media she is out of the loop and she's fearful of missing out.  However, I think that it should be made apparent to children that they aren't missing out and that the internet has a lot of bad people on it.  So even though technology offers us a lot of awesome opportunities, I think that we should be mindful of the damage that could be done to anyone with access to phones, laptops, tablets, etc.

I am very proud of my digital footprint because it does not consist of anything inappropriate or anything that could get me in trouble with school or with future employers.  I pride myself on being smart on the internet because I know that I would be devastated if something happened to my future education or career.  All it takes is one stupid mistake and your life could be over, so I think that we all need to be mindful of what we post, because schools and employers look up your name to see the representation that you will be bringing to their school or workforce.  My digital footprint consists of my basketball highlights from high school, my achievements from high school and college, and my involvement in the newspaper called the View Point.  I think that this digital footprint will make me look good to employers and can put me ahead of other possible employees.  None of my social media accounts or posts come up, but if any employers went to look those up, my posts are all appropriate.  I want to have a clean digital footprint, because I know that that footprint will follow me around forever and that in some aspect, it represents me as a person.  We should all work on having a cleaner digital footprint to have a better chance at having the jobs and lives that we want.  Technology can have many positives and negatives, but I believe that we can capitalize on technology if we learn how to stay safe online and pay attention to our digital footprint, learn how to fact check, and learn how to stay positive as we use technology and social media as well.  

Blog #11

EOTO #2 Reflection: Illusory Truth Effect

The EOTO presentation specifically on the topic of the Illusory Truth Effect was most interesting to me.  I had never heard of the name of this effect, but I know that I see it all the time in the media and when talking amongst my friends and family.  I think that it is super scary that we can trick ourselves into thinking something was true, solely based on repetition and the constant word of mouth that we share amongst each other.  It is startling to see how the evolution of this effect has truly taken off, and sense it hasn't gone away yet, I think it will be prominent in human society forever.

The Illusory Truth Effect was first discovered back in 1977.  The study in 1977 showed that most of the test subjects chose certain answers since some of the statements were repeated in comparison to others.  This was fascinating to me, because if this was the situation in 1977, obviously people at the time were conditioned to act this way because they picked up this behavior from the people before them.  Picking the repeating statements was so prominent that it signals to me that this has always been a common trend in our society and it's essentially a habit that has been formed and that will continue to be reinforced throughout generations.  This study may seem harmless, but as we've seen in real life, this effect has serious implications.  For instance, during the presentation Luis asked a question about what we thought the cause of Covid-19 was.  Some of us raised our hands in favor of it being caused by bats and others voted that it was caused by a leak in a laboratory.  I was in favor of it being caused by bats, but Luis enlightened me that neither was a confirmed cause.  This came as a shock, and I realized just how easily it is to be misinformed.  This has led me to question how many other things I am misled by on a daily basis, and I will definitely look more into information before coming to a conclusion and sharing it with others.  It's very hard to know what is true and false, but I think that it's important to make an effort to try to seek the truth from numerous sources, because it is so easy to trick ourselves into going with the information that we see the most.

Everyone pays attention to the news, and we all talk and exchange opinions with one another for the most part, so nobody is excused from the Illusory Truth Effect.  This is alarming, because it's not like certain individuals can be excused and then help others see this problem.  Instead, we are all victims, but I think that if we make it a point to check what we hear from others or what we see on social media or the internet, we should be less exposed to this effect.  This will be especially hard when looking at sources of mainstream media, because a lot of the time these platforms share the same side and sources.  So, we would see the same information repeated and would establish that this is the truth through repetition.  However, maybe if we avoided only using mainstream media and looked to citizen journalists and alternative media, we might have a better chance of not seeing the same false information over and over again.  Those sources would provide alternative opinions so we wouldn't see much repetition, and we wouldn't be able to trick ourselves into solely trusting the repeated information.

We will continue to be misled, if we do not try to find other sources of information on certain topics.  The habit of relying on repetition for the truth will not slow down otherwise, and this would be damaging, because we would continue to walk around misinformed.  I don't want to walk around not knowing what is truly going on in the world, because if we do not know the truth, how can we make changes in certain situations when needed.  Learning about the Illusory Truth Effect has been eye-opening to me, and I hope others realize that we need to prevent our minds from being tainted by the delusion of repeated information, because it is not guaranteed that it is the correct information.  Nobody wants to walk around feeling clueless and making decisions based on false information, so learn to be mindful and take precautions, such as fact checking, so you can be informed correctly!     

Blog #10

Artificial Intelligence: There's So Much We Don't Know

Artificial intelligence has invaded our lives by taking away certain aspects of jobs or jobs altogether and has taken away our privacy as well.  This is extremely scary and alarming, because I've only thought about AI in the sense of ChatGPT, but this video showcased so much information that I was unaware of.

AI took off in 2016 when Google DeepMind's AlphaGo program defeated the best player of the game Go, Lee Sedol, four to one.  This was a major achievement for AI, because people learned on that day that AI can use instructions from humans and develop its own instructions and does things that are unexpected and unthought of by humans.  Though this feat was incredible and a win for AI, people did not fully understand the effects that would occur when implementing AI machinery into everyday life.

One negative effect of AI technology getting implemented into the workforce is the fact that with this new technology, production increases, resulting in employers needing less workers.  Therefore, families and communities overall are taking hits because people are losing money, and not only can they not put food on the table for their families, but they are unable to spend money and put it back into the community for others.  It was very sad to see how the small town featured in the video was struggling and it was mind boggling to see how extensive the effects were.  Automation effects towns across the country, because if employees don't lose their jobs altogether, they get put into less skills positions that pay less.  So, activity would still be consistent or even more efficient, but the number of jobs available are low and do not pay as well as previous ones did.  This was very alarming to me, because I feel as though that my family could eventually be affected by this, because my dad works in one of the Freihofer's factories in my hometown.  I'm not sure what my family would do if Freihofer's used automation predominantly and got rid of many workers including my dad.  We would take a major hit financially and I'm sure our lives would be totally different than they are today. We wouldn't have the same opportunities that we have today because my dad wouldn't be capable of providing them for us.  So, this issue really hit home for me, and I was blown away by the fact that only 20% of jobs are lost due to offshoring.  Therefore, the reason for job loss is mostly caused by automation.  Automation impacts lives more than many employers like to admit and clearly, AI technology isn't beneficial to all.  Instead, the use of AI in cases like automation creates this standoff between capital and labor, and people with capital always win.  This standoff effects all, because people with power, like company owners, have control of the distribution of capital.  So, money goes into the machines, and with limited workers due to higher efficiency with the machines, most of the money returns to these people in power.  The money never trickles down, resulting in people being incapable of supporting their families and contributing to our economy.

As I've mentioned, Artificial intelligence has taken over the workforce, increasing the stress in households and communities as people try to get by on the little pay they still receive.  If matters couldn't get worse, not only is AI taking away individuals' livelihoods, but it's also completely invading our privacy for the benefits of powerhouse companies like Google and Facebook.  "Surveillance Capitalism," according to the video, is private, human experience that is claimed as a free source of raw material.  Essentially Google takes the behavioral data that is gained by the traces we leave of our search and browsing history and learns as much as they possibly can about you to exploit our private thoughts.  They look at this data, because they want to keep us on Google for long periods of time and want to provide us with ads and top search results that we will most likely click on.  It is startling that this hasn't been brought to our attention before, because Google is constantly gaining information about us with each click to remain superior and prosperous.  I'm disappointed that Google turned to this because I feel that the founders could have gone down a different route instead of exploiting its consumers.  The unofficial motto when Google was first created was "Don't be evil," but they have become evil in a sense, because they kept this privacy invasion a secret from everyone.  Instead, I think that this invasion of privacy is only needed if someone has committed a crime, because the data that Google collects could be useful during investigations.  Once the investigation is over, the data should be deleted.  However, I want to make it very clear that I think that people should be aware this is happening and should have a say in how much data Google should be allowed to keep, if any at all.  I think that safety should be top priority, so I do understand why some of this data having could be valuable in case there was security breaches or aggressive crimes being carried out, but I don't think it's right to gain this intimate information just for the sake of keeping a business relevant.

Facebook has also taken advantage of AI technology and has found out through experimentation that they can make certain adjustments on the platform, like changing the feed to affect our actual mood in real life, without our knowledge.  They can to control the way we think in a certain aspect, because they manipulate our feed based on our previous behavior, then they put things on our feed that they expect will gain reaction from us.  This is a complete invasion of our intellectual thoughts, and it's unsettling that AI can change our views and thoughts through a screen.  I'm sure if Facebook let the public know about this, they would be outraged, and many may either demand Facebook to stop or stop using the app in its entirety.  I'm glad that people are trying to make laws for us to have the control over where our behavioral data goes, who has access to it, and how much of it.  It's important for society to be aware of AI's manipulative and invasive power over us.  I am pleased that I have noticed that certain social media apps and Google now have a notification that pops up before I begin to search, so that I can control my own behavioral data.

China has taken AI technology use to the extreme and has essentially become a full "surveillance state," meaning that they are able to identify who their citizens are, what they believe in politically, their religious standpoints, their language, etc.  No one is safe and especially for Turkic Muslims called Uyghurs, who are targeted simply based on their beliefs.  They are targeted and can be stopped in the middle of the street and patted down by the police with AI technology that identifies them.  It's sad and shocking to see that this invasion of privacy has separated families and has even led to torture and death.  These people don't deserve to be taken from their everyday lives and sent to re-education camps, so it is startling to see that AI and the greed to be in absolute control has evolved to this targeting and destruction.  There's no hope in democracy in China, and I really hope that other countries do not adapt to this kind of technology and behavior.  If they do, I believe the results would be catastrophic, hardly anybody would have a say in government.  Chaos would ensue and the world would continue into this progression of sameness and conformity and no improvement would continue.  People would be incapable of sharing their own opinions and the Marketplace of Ideas would dissipate.

Though one cannot deny the benefits of AI, I thought it was much more startling that society doesn't know much about the extensive power AI has over us.  Therefore, I think that more attention needs to be placed on what AI is capable of, because at the end of the day we need to secure people's livelihoods in the sense of protecting jobs and people's behavior and thoughts.    

Blog #9

EOTO #2: Citizen Journalism

Citizen journalism took off in 2000 in South Korea where a Korean entrepreneur by the name of Oh Yeon Ho stated that "Everybody is a reporter."  He was unsatisfied with the way things were being reported in the South Korean media, and so were many others.  The online newspaper, OhmyNews, was created and volunteers were hired to generate the news and content that would be shared.  Even though Oh Yeon Ho didn't have the funds to hire professional journalists, he was still capable of producing this successful news outlet.  The newspaper started out with 727 citizen journalists, but just after seven years, the company had grown to over 50,000 citizen journalists, contributing from 100 countries.  It is incredible to see how this idea that Oh Yeon Ho declared has taken off.  Now anyone, anywhere in the world can produce news content with the press of a button.      

Citizen journalism has impacted the ways in which we receive our news in positive and negative ways. Therefore, there has been an ongoing debate over whether it is beneficial.  According to Britannica, citizen journalism is "journalism that is conducted by people who are not professional journalists but who disseminate information using Web sites, blogs, and social media."  Anyone is a journalist, even if they don't have the necessary qualifications to be one, such as a degree in journalism.  You may question if these people are qualified and if their information is credible, but sometimes citizen journalists are able to help experienced news reporters gain more information to provide a more insightful look at something or they could reveal new things that occur all together which may have never been shown due to censorship or the fact that a limited amount of people knew that it was even occurring.

As I mentioned, citizen journalism includes anyone, so people can share their varying opinions on certain situations.  This can help society, because people are able to see multiple sides and perspectives, allowing for a better understanding of situations.  This creates clarity and people can stay more informed and become more educated, resulting in people not being misled.  If people were misled or only saw one viewpoint, they may become more hostile to others who have an opinion that they would consider to be outlying.  Therefore, citizen journalists can provide different viewpoints which provide readers with the opportunity to see all sides and come to a more proper conclusion.  This can prevent hostility and people can have a better understanding of one another and how situations affect them.  For instance, with over 50,000 citizen journalists reporting to OhmyNews from numerous countries, people can see how certain situations affect certain types of people, and you can become more educated and cultured.  With citizen journalism, you can share your own opinions and view others'.  Typically, these opinions will not have any ulterior motives or agendas to them, because they are not connected to mainstream news media platforms that focus predominantly on keeping viewers hooked and pushing you to feel one way about something.

Having the ability to hear other perspectives and to hear about news that you may not hear about on mainstream news media platforms is extremely positive for the reasons I provided above.  However, there are downsides to citizen journalism.  One being the fact that these citizen journalists are at risk of getting into legal trouble.  Citizen journalists can be against law enforcement and government officials at times, especially when they reveal information that law enforcement or other government officials wanted to keep secret.  For instance, Priscilla Villareal a citizen journalist who reports on police interactions in Laredo, Texas has had a run in with the law.  She says that she was already getting intimidated by law enforcement and the district attorney for her involvement in spreading media, but things escalated when she asked about a border patrol agent who unfortunately took his own life and about a fatal car accident that had occurred.  She "was arrested on a felony charge based on 'Misuse of Official Information' statute," according to editorandpublisher.com.  This charge was dismissed, but she was charged with it to begin with, because she was reporting on events that law enforcement and the district attorney did not want anyone discussing until they released their take.  So, being a citizen journalist can be risky because the law and people of authority can try to come after you, if you report on something they disapprove of or if you have differing opinions in comparison to them.  

Aside from the citizen journalists themselves, there are also risks for society overall.  Even though citizen journalism offers individuals to report on news with their own opinions shining through, there is the chance that people can become too overwhelmed by all the opinions, and they may not be able to process what is the true story.  So even though people can reveal things about situations and events, over-stimulus of information and opinions can lead to uncertainty and overall frustration.  It is possible that people may turn to mass media news because they would most likely only hear stories that are one-sided and not complex.  This could be damaging in both ways, but I think that citizen journalism should still be encouraged, because at least there is room for various opinions and more likely for the truth to come out in one or multiple perspectives.  Citizen journalists are predominantly always on the hunt to find the truth, which is a good thing, but some take it too far and can be unethical and untrustworthy.  They weren't necessarily taught ethical practices, as one would be taught if they were trying to get a degree in journalism.  Therefore, their unethical and untrustworthy practices may slip under the rug as they are in the heat of the moment.  However, many people trust that these citizens are trying to help them seek clarity, and most are, but there is the possibility that citizen journalists have personal motives, or simply didn't do the proper fact checking.  I do believe that many citizen journalists understand that some people may be skeptical of the information they put out, so they are making it more of an effort to fact check and make sure that they have credible sources, to be informative and trustworthy.

Citizen journalists are capable of witnessing and reporting occurrences that go unheard, especially when people of authority are caught in a scandal or do not handle situations in a proper manner.  The access to social media and the principle that anyone can be a reporter, has provided people with the platform to reveal important issues that need to be brought about to make change possible.  People can look out for injustices and other things that affect them.  In turn they can spread this information to others who are similar to them in regards to race, sexuality, gender, social class, etc.  Citizen journalism can limit the chance of people who are considered "outliers" in society to be unheard.  Once again according to editorandpublisher.com, "They represent everyone from young people concerned about the future to retirees choosing to reenter the workforce to play a new vital role."  A prime example of citizen journalism being used to bring awareness to issues happening to the minorities in society is the beating of Rodney King that occurred on March 3, 1991.  On this day a man was brutally beaten by police, but when they brought King in, they downplayed his injuries and didn't fully explain how they detained him.  This injustice would have gone unknown by many, but thankfully a civilian named George Holliday was able to record this incident from an apartment balcony.  He sold this video to the local television station KTLA, who showed the footage on their broadcast and sold it to CNN.  This video sparked outrage around the country and resulted in the discussion of police brutality.

This form of journalism will surely affect my dream job of being a journalist because I will most likely be in contact with citizen journalists, whether that be when I'm in need of more information or am collaborating with them.  However, if I do end up working for some mainstream media, there's the chance that my job could be in jeopardy.  People may begin to start trusting citizen journalism more, especially since they offer more opinions and are starting to become more ethical and trustworthy.  Therefore, there is the chance that I would have to steer away from a job in mainstream media to have a career in journalism.  My family and friends can be affected by citizen journalism, because they can share news with others and can spark important conversations.  However, there is always the chance of getting attacked for what they post, and this goes for anyone else who becomes a citizen journalist.  News shared from citizen journalists can also impact them, because there could be the chance of them being misinformed since not all citizen journalists are focused on checking their information or they might misinterpret things themselves.  This could result in us walking around being misinformed and making incorrect decisions based on this false information.  Ultimately the impact of citizen journalism will most likely continue to be up for debate for years to come, because there are positive and negative effects, and it can impact people in various ways. 

Blog #8

 Snapchat: Through the Lens of Innovation

Many of us use Snapchat throughout the day to communicate with friends and family all over the world.  Snapchat was the new social media in 2011 when it launched.  Since 2011 it has become a main source of communication for many young people, however not everyone is as willing to adopt Snapchat as a main form of communication.  Why did the younger audience rush to download the app, while the older generation was more hesitant?  The answer to this question is assisted by Roger's Diffusion of Innovations Theory.  This theory touches on the reasoning for why some technological innovations and why some ideas work and last over time in comparison to others.  The five main categories of people that are a part of this theory are the pioneers, the early adopters, the early majority, the late adopters, and the laggards.  When applying this graph and these categories to Snapchat, one must take into consideration what Snapchat had to offer to certain demographics at the time.  

For starters, the pioneers of this category were Stanford students Bobby Murphy, Evan Spiegel, and Reggie Brown.  They created the platform Snapchat under the original name of Picaboo.  They created Snapchat in the first place, because they wanted to design a social media app that was focused on having content that disappeared.  This was a novel idea that would most likely be a huge success, because many people dislike the idea of how permanent social media is.  Therefore, with some of the younger generation already on board, many investors tried to jump on the opportunity to make a lot of money as Snapchat took off.  According to the website linked above, these investors would be described as early adopters and included Lightspeed Ventures, Benchmark Capital, and Institutional Venture Partners.

  

Overall, the younger generation at the time would be considered the early majority, because they were on the hunt for a new form of social media.  According to the website Business Chef , "parents and other members of older generations have a dominant presence on Facebook, causing younger users to seek out a new platform."  I'm sure they heard some of their friends talking about this new app and wanted to check it out for themselves, especially with the fact that you wouldn't see your parents or grandparents on the app most likely!

The reason why you wouldn't see this older generation on the app was because they were content with using Facebook.  This older generation didn't necessarily feel the need to communicate with their friends and family all the time, but instead used Facebook more as just a check-in service or if they wanted to post themselves, they could, and it would be up permanently.  I consider Snapchat a service for constant updates, and I just find that the older generation doesn't have time to constantly be posting and snapping others back.  Therefore, I would consider the older generation to be labeled as late adopters, because many didn't understand the point.  For instance, I've gone over numerous times with my parents and grandparents about how you take pictures of yourself and send them to friends or post on your story, but eventually all the content goes away after a certain period.  My family members couldn't grasp the concept and found it essentially pointless if you couldn't go back and view a picture or video whenever you wanted to.  They also didn't like the idea of having to save your chats or messages, because they didn't understand why they wouldn't just stay forever.  However, some people in this category ended up eventually getting Snapchat for various reasons.  Some may have been forced by the members of the younger generation in their life who wanted them to get it to stay in touch, because the younger generation has stopped using Facebook in many instances.  Another reason for getting it could be since members of the older generation didn't want to feel like they were missing out or were getting too old to keep up with the trends.  There is also the possibility that some are business owners who felt obligated to get Snapchat to reach a younger target audience.  In this case, they would probably hire younger people to control this form of social media and other types for their business, especially if they were unfamiliar with it or didn't understand its purpose.

Finally, there are the laggards, who are very reluctant to getting the innovative technology or getting behind the new idea, so they take a while to get it or don't adopt it at all.  Regarding Snapchat, I think the laggards would be people who see the negatives in Snapchat and are very hesitant to get it, and don't really see a need of it in their life.  For instance, some people may not like to be on their phone, so they may not want to have another app that takes up their time.  They might feel that it causes a lack of communication as well, because many times instead of communicating in person people might use Snapchat.  I personally feel that our generation would rather snap than talk to one another due to the efficiency and brevity of snapping people back and forth.  I also feel that the older generation doesn't trust the information that is put on the Discovery page on the app, so they have negative opinions toward it.  They may think that the news that can be featured on Snapchat is untrustworthy, therefore it is pointless to have, because there's no use of having it if they don't use it to communicate with people or as a news source.  Lastly, I think that the older generation finds that Snapchat promotes reckless posting, because children and teenagers who use the app take for granted the idea that snaps and stories don't last.  So, they may think this a rotten app that they don't want to support, because they think that the younger generation post a lot of inappropriate things online not thinking about the consequences.  Snapchat's snaps go away in seconds and stories go away in 24 hours, this demonstrates that content goes away.  The older generation may have a better understanding of their digital footprint and may want to avoid Snapchat at all costs, to not be fooled by the disappearing content feature.

Snapchat has been able to last over the years as one of the hottest apps on the market because they have made many updates to the app to keep pleasing their users.  They make updates to stay relevant and to start the process over on the graph which represents the stages of a technology or an idea's relevance.  If they didn't make these updates, their consumers would become bored and would want to use a new app instead.  As consumers get older, their love for Snapchat may die out as they learn about the negative health benefits of using social media so much.  Therefore, Snapchat must continue to come out with new additions to their app to stay relevant to new generations, because the old ones will mature and will realize that the benefits of communicating with friends and family constantly doesn't outweigh the fact that many have headaches from looking at their phones too much, lack speaking skills, have neck or back pain, etc..  

Blog #7

 Antiwar: Why do we never hear these opinions?

As we all know, we live in a power and money-hungry world.  Therefore, while I am disappointed that various opinions on certain topics, like antiwar, are not shown in the media as often- I am not surprised.  Issues that relate to going against the government are never really talked about on mainstream media, and I think that people who are anti-government in certain situations are silenced.  As I've learned in class, the government is not allowed to silence you prior to you expressing your thoughts or beliefs.  This is called Prior Restraint, and it is unconstitutional, because it is in violation of the First Amendment.  Obviously, there are exceptions, and the government can punish you for your speech, like in the case of libel or threatening speech.  However, I think the predominant reason that we don't see these antiwar opinions and other opinions on issues, which essentially attack the government and question our decisions for this country, is due to fear.  I think that these writers who voice these opinions are intimidated by the government and are forced to use obscure websites to just get their opinions out to people.

I believe that the government, specifically presidents, have created this stigma about going against authority.  We have seen it throughout American history, where presidents throw people into jail on phony charges or none at all, since these individuals have criticized the government.  An example of silencing citizens was in 1861 as President Lincoln threw people into jail as they criticized the start of the Civil War.  Another example is the creation of the Espionage Act of 1917, where government employees can be thrown in jail for expressing WWI antiwar views.  These are just a few instances in our history that have caused this stigma and created fear amongst the American people.  Simply, many do not want to be the next ones thrown in jail for having a difference of opinion in comparison to authority, so they choose to stay silent or post on websites that aren't very popular.  This is unfortunate, because these people have a lot to offer and just from my exploration of these two websites; ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative, I would say that they have a lot of credibility.  Aside from credible information that isn't talked about often in the media, they also have opinions that I would say many Americans would agree with.  Therefore, I think that the government sees them as a big threat, because they are worried that if Americans are exposed to this information and agree with these opinions, they will learn that they are not alone and they will want to spread the word even more.  This could lead to people gathering in protest of our country's role in international wars or people banding together to change how our government decides when we go into war and who specifically decides if we do so.  If the government wasn't allowed to promote war and follow through with assisting in battles overseas, this would lead to our country not looking as powerful.  We wouldn't be able to inflict our power amongst others, and our country doesn't exactly know how to run without getting involved in affairs that have nothing to do with us.  The government wants our country to be the dominant country that everyone else turns to for assistance, while internally we are struggling to push out these weapons and are going deeper and deeper into debt.  Without our involvement, not only can we not inflict our dominance, but we might not need to create as many weapons.  Which could result in less jobs, which could overall affect the economy in a sense.  Not as many people would have the ability to spend money on needs and wants and we would see the money that the U.S. generates start to deplete.  Therefore, the government does whatever it can to stop antiwar voices from exposing our internal issues.  Predominantly, they do this by having the stigma that I mentioned previously, and our government essentially runs on the power they have to keep people silenced based on the fear evoked from the government's actions in the past.

People speaking out against the government would make us less dominant, but it would also make us appear as something far worse: weak and vulnerable.  This is the last thing that the U.S. wants, because if we look weak and vulnerable, we will be viewed as a target.  Other foreign powers may believe that we have holes in the relationship between our government and the people, leading them to believe that they can exploit us.  This would cause extreme panic in the American people, most likely leading to even more frustration amongst the opposing voices.  It could also cause internal chaos between citizens who could blame these opposing voices for exposing our government.  

Another reason why the people who criticize the government's actions are more underground in relation to their media presence, as seen in many of these antiwar articles, is due to the threatening behavior of other Americans.  It would be nice at times if we all agreed, but we know realistically that that isn't possible hardly ever.  I know that I would be scared to publish my opinions, especially if I was aware of citizens who disagreed with them.  Not everyone has a peaceful way of demonstrating disagreement, so I would be worried how people would react to what I say, as I'm sure many antiwar voices are as well.  I feel that there is a negative connotation towards going against the government that branches out to being called "unamerican."  If you criticize our country, you are viewed a lot of times as not a true American and I feel that you are depicted by many as not being grateful for living in a country "that gives you so much".  In reality, I feel that these people with these opposing voices are just trying to show that we can make the country and ultimately the world better if we changed a few things and actually followed the Constitution which declares that the president can't bring us into war, but Congress can.  This means that the president can't call for war because he feels that it is needed.  Ultimately the U.S.'s job is supposed to be about implementing peace when foreign countries are in war.  This certainly does not mean sending millions of weapons and thousands of troops or volunteers over to Ukraine and the Middle East.  It's essential for antiwar voices to be heard because they would help solve many societal and economic issues, by showing others that this isn't normal behavior, and it simply isn't our place.  Though it is scary to speak out, it would help millions, because war would no longer be dragged out due to the U.S. continuously supplying countries with weapons, manpower, and supplies.

Ultimately, I appreciate that people are willing to publish and voice their opinions against the government, because if they didn't, many of us would go on not knowing the other side of the story.  They give voice to the millions of people who feel the same way, and they show that many Americans will not stand for the injustices that we see on our own soil.  Even though you can be casted as an outsider or experience even worse consequences from our government, I think that it is vital to speak out and show the government that we are aware of what is happening and that we will evoke change if we find it to be necessary.   

Blog #6

Reflection on the Ballpoint Pen

When I think of the big inventions of the world that changed the way we communicate, my mind wanders off into thinking about the telephone, television, motion pictures, computers, iPhone, etc..  However, I think that it is super interesting to take a look at an invention that isn't talked about as much.  It's an item that we use daily, but I feel that we take it for granted due to it's simplicity.  The ballpoint pen changed the way we write and ultimately improved the efficiency and reliability of our communication.

The idea of using a pen was nothing new, however there were issues with the fountain pen, which was the main pen that was used.  Laszlo Biro, who worked as an editor for the Hungarian newspaper Hongrie- Magyarorszag-Hungary, experienced these issues first hand.  As he wrote for this newspaper he experienced many issues with smudging, due to the fact that the ink of fountain pens would take quite some time to dry.  At an attempt to solve this issue he filled the ink used to print newspapers into the fountain pen.  I thought that it was quite interesting how he tried to combine these two items in order to fix this issue, because he understood that the ink of the pen was a problem.  However, he quickly found out that the structure of the pen, even with the new ink was a problem as well, because the ink clogged the pen due to its thickness.  Biro and his brother were inspired by the pen that Loud created, which had a large metal ball at its tip.  Their pen had a smaller ball at the tip of it in order to give the ink enough mobility and to prevent the ink from drying inside.

After inventing the pen successfully, they introduced it in 1931 at the Budapest International Fair.  They patented it in 1938, but in 1941 they fled to Argentina with a friend named Juan Jorge Meyne.  In Argentina they created their company Biro Pens and filed a new patent.  They named their pen the Birome, which is a play on of Biro and Meyne and it first sold for $12.50.  That definitely seems like an outrageous price, especially today, but we all know that when a company is starting out their prices are typically higher when they are first generating products.  This is caused by being inexperienced and not having the efficient manufacturing process from the start.  When listening to the presentation given on ballpoint pens and doing my own research, I learned to appreciate the process of trial and error, and learned how it is really rewarding when you finally figure something out and solve an issue.  Efficient and mass manufacturing has played a part in making the ballpoint pen significantly cheaper, and now they cost less than one cent to make and millions are sold each day.

I never have really thought about how the ballpoint pen has changed communication, but after listening to this presentation, I have a new appreciation for this invention.  For instance, how many times are you asked a week to use a pen in your class or how many times are you asked if you have one in general for someone to borrow?  I'm sure it is a lot, because most people have pens on them in order to jot important things down or to sign important papers.  Everyone is always in need of one, and most people have them on them, because they are cheap and tiny enough to fit in pockets and bags.  Aside from the convenience of them, ballpoint pens are also extremely valuable, because they make communication so much clearer.  Ballpoint pens are reliable and the ink doesn't smudge, which was seen in the past with fountain pens.  Instead, ballpoint pens give a cleaner look, which results in easy communication amongst people, because the handwriting is most likely legible and can be read easily.  There is no confusion, which makes communication by pen and paper all around more efficient.

We would be missing a huge aspect of communication if it weren't for the creation of the easily produced and replaceable, cheap, and neat ballpoint pen.  This may seem like a lame invention in the world in comparison to flashier products, but I would say that if you thought about what it would mean to not have them at our disposal, you'll learn to appreciate their significance a whole lot more.  The invention of the ballpoint pen is a fantastic example of problem solving through trial and error, and it's very eye opening to see how one solution to an issue many years ago, could still have such an impact on our world today.