Final Blog Post

              

As technological advances continue to infiltrate society, it is important to effectively navigate while utilizing technology. It is hard to define if one has a healthy relationship with technology because we are surrounded by it. While looking at the example of the Mad World video, this is an overly exaggerated view of people relying on and becoming addicted to their phones. The phone is only one piece of technology. There is concern that the way humans interact will change or be altered (Ashworth, 2019). For me, it is not an issue as I like to actually have conversations with people and talk to them. Being able to do this is an important skill in life. For some, like me, this comes extremely easy to me, but for others, it is difficult. The only way to get better is to do it; unfortunately, many prefer to use their phones to send a text or an email. Human beings are social beings, I find that when trying to get something done at work or in school, an email is not as effective as a one-on-one conversation. (The Importance of Human Interaction in the Technology Age)Furthermore, emails can be very time-consuming. For example, they were designed to save time, but the amount people can receive is astronomical. There is no way to avoid technology, even in our own homes. If we do not give technology the appropriate amount of time, there will be no way one can function in life. For example, when simply going to the store, one needs to engage with technology. Many stores have doors connected to sensors that automatically open when a person goes near the door. To purchase something, a cashier swipes or scans the items, and the price gets calculated. The way to keep a healthy balance is to utilize technology but prioritize human interactions. For example, when ordering food, I utilize the technology available on my phone, but when having the meal, I try to put the phone away and have conversations. 

                                            

Being dyslexic, I rely on technology to assist me. (What is Dyslexia?) For example, I utilize speech-to-text software as well as text-to-speech software. Even when responding to a friend’s text, I will speak my reply and have it turned into text. For assignments and tests in school, I rely on text-to-speech technology. Another type of technology that I rely on is predictive text applications. I am well aware that dyslexics who were born 20 years before me did not have the luxury of these technologies (Lynch, 2017). 

As for accessing information, society has changed. At one point, one would need to read the morning newspaper, watch the evening news, read a weekly or monthly magazine, or wait for a book to be published. Now, information is at our fingertips, immediate and up-to-the-minute. What has not changed is the fact that some sources are reliable, whereas others are not. This has not changed over time. One has always needed to gather information from numerous sources to ensure reliability. With or without technology, in my opinion, this will never change; it is just a reality. 

                                           

For family and friends, technology has positively assisted them. Technology has been utilized in many areas, especially to assist in communication and connections. Being from New York and having family and friends living throughout the country, facetime is utilized by many to stay connected. Facetime has replaced the traditional phone call and seems to increase engagement. It is the closest thing to having a real conversation without actually being in the same room. Other technologies that are utilized are social media platforms. It would be wonderful to have family and friends present all the time, but that is not realistic. Pictures and videos can be taken and shared in an effort to memorialize the effect. The negative side of technology occurs with work-life balance (Wedgewood, 2022). Technology allows people to work from home or other remote locations. Since the pandemic, many companies have learned that people do not need to sit in the office. In the past, when someone left the office to go home, they were able to shut down and focus on non-work-related issues. Now, at various gatherings, I can find family members checking and responding to work emails when in the past, they would not. There is a need to intentionally shut off work to maintain a healthy work-life balance. 

As for my online footprint, I have been very careful about what I put out there for the world to see. When one googles my name, I do not pop up. There are other people who share my name that come up, but nothing that is actually connected to me. When going on Instagram, there are images of me but nothing that would raise a red flag. The image that is painted of me is that of a typical college student enjoying life but not enjoying it too much. Currently, there is nothing that needs to be edited, but since I am going into my third year of college, I am extremely aware of the need to make sure there are only positive images of me online.  

References

 

Ashworth, C. (2019). Are We Losing The Human Connection. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2019/08/01/are-we-losing-the-human-connection/?sh=3faf306e5baa

 

 

Lynch, M. (2017). 11 Must-Have Apps and Tools For Dyslexic Students. The Tech Edvocate.https://www.thetechedvocate.org/11-must-apps-tools-dyslexic-students/

 

 

Wedgwood, J. (2022). The Importance of Work-Life Balance. https://thehappinessindex.com/blog/importance-work-life-balance/

 

Blog Post #10:Living in the Age of AI

Throughout the course of history, innovation, and advancement has both positive effects as well as unintended negative consequences. In the age of artificial intelligence, as a society, we are beginning to experience the effects of these innovations. Artificial intelligence has the ability to improve efficiency in almost all aspects of life. Many proponents of AI and machine learning point out that these technologies can replace mundane tasks and allow people to focus on jobs that people are passionate about. The downside is that jobs are being lost, and training people for “AI safe” jobs is extremely expensive. (A Brief History of AI)

 

   

In the area of privacy, as pointed out in the video, as much as we are using Google, Google is using us. The current technology provides businesses with the capability to predict individual behaviors, wants, and needs. The positive side is that through the use of technology and data collection companies can market specifically to an individual. Instead of guessing what a person may or may not want, it almost becomes a guarantee that our needs are met. The downside is that companies and industries can manipulate people. For example, Facebook conducted “experiments” where they attempted to get more people to vote. In the end, over 350,000 people, who typically would not vote, went out to vote. Facebook also sold data to a company that utilized the information for Brexit and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. If technology has the ability to manipulate the masses for the benefit of one, it can be extremely dangerous.

 

Technology and artificial intelligence are also being used for national security purposes. China has incorporated these technologies to ensure control over its people. For example, there is a Muslim-populated area of China where the government has used AI to track and monitor many of its citizens. Additionally, China is working with governments in Venezuela and parts of Africa to sell them technology and assist in incorporating practices to keep control over the masses. While many initially believed the technology would connect the world and provide a more democratic society, these governments are doing the opposite. It is being used to control the masses. 

 

Online security and identity theft have been an issue since the inception of online technology. Criminals are extremely savvy in using these advances for evil rather than good. Data breaches and individual hacks put people’s personal information at risk. There have been numerous instances that companies have experienced this. The stolen data is then used for the benefit of individuals who do not have the best intentions. Furthermore, foreign agencies also hack into our government’s systems, creating a matter of national concern.   Unfortunately, the cyber security industry is ever-growing. Companies and our government are working around the clock to protect our infrastructure and citizens.

 

As with everything, artificial intelligence and technological advances help society move forward and evolve. Technology has the ability to make our lives easier, but there is a downside. Jobs may be lost; governments can use it to track citizens and other nations can infiltrate our systems. Society will benefit immensely if technology is used for good and not evil. 

Blog Post #9: Sherman Anti-Trust Act

In today’s world of bipartisan politics and politicians voting strictly on party lines, it may seem nearly impossible to fathom that the Sherman Ant-Trust Act of 1890 passed the Senate by a vote of 51-1 and the House of Representatives unanimously voted in favor of it with a vote of 242-0. Less than three weeks after getting through the House, on July 2, 1890, President Benjamin Harrison signed it into law. Similar to what we see now, new industries were emerging at the time. The landscape and marketplace were moving from small individualized businesses to large corporations. The likes of Andrew Carnegie through the steel industry and John D. Rockefeller via Standard Oil began driving away their competition. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act declares monopolies illegal. In 1914, building upon the act, passed the Clayton Anti-Trust Act that defined business practices that are conducive to the formation of monopolies or that result from them as illegal.  These laws aimed to prevent one company from controlling an entire industry. (The Sherman Ant-Trust Act Explained)

 

                                      

 

Like any type of government regulation, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act has both an upside and a downside. The advantage of eliminating monopolies is fostering competition within a market. By doing this, prices remain lower for the consumer, provide more choices, and increase wages for the workers. The negative of doing away with monopolies is that many times the company that has been able to take over an industry is extremely efficient. The product or service being provided has outlasted all others. Furthermore, doing away with a monopoly can cause disruption and chaos in an industry. 

 

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act has affected society as a whole. For example, one should turn to the phone industry. Currently, when picking a phone carrier, consumers can choose from three major carriers, Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T.  In 1974, AT&T controlled over 90% of the market. A lawsuit was brought against AT&T stating they were a monopoly. After eight years of legal battling, in January 1982, AT&T agreed to break up its local business into seven smaller regional operating companies known as “Baby Bells.” The divestiture process took two years. When it ended in 1984, AT&T retained only long-distance, Bell Labs, and Western Electric. The regional companies that resulted from the AT&T monopoly breakup went through a series of mergers and consolidations over the next 25 years (Grabel, 2022). When wireless emerged as a new and widely adopted technology, it caused an arms race as companies competed to expand areas of service. The results can be seen today in the handful of national powerhouses that offer a wide variety of telecommunications services, including landlines, wireless, cable, and fiber-optic internet and television. An example of a near-monopoly is the De Beers Group, the world's largest diamond mining, production, and retail company. For almost a century, De Beers monopolized the diamond industry. However, market and regulatory factors diminished its market share from approximately 85% in the late 1980s to around 23% in 2019 (Zimniskly, 2019).

 

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act affects different segments of society differently. For example, the Sherman Act and subsequent legislation ruled that labor unions were not subject to anti-trust laws because human beings are not seen as commodities. This helps the average worker in an attempt to help increase wages. Anti-trust legislation can have a negative effect on the ultra-rich. For example, a small group can control a large market. By breaking up or outlawing monopolies, there is a potential to limit the amount of money one company or investor could make. With the increase in competition, the cost of a product or service remains lower than if only one organization controlled the market. This helps the elderly and poor who may be on a fixed budget. 

 

The Anti-Trust laws that grew out of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act affect society as a whole. For example, television cable operators with more than 300 subscribers and 12 channels had to set aside one-third of their channels for local commercial broadcast stations. In affirming the must-carry provisions, which require cable systems to carry local broadcast television stations, the Supreme Court ruled that these provisions furthered important government interests in promoting a diversity of opinions and ideas (Schultz). The Anti-Trust laws will affect my generation in the technology market. For example, Facebook is synonymous with the Internet, and as WhatsApp is with cell phones. Neither have been deemed monopolies, but they are under a microscope. Facebook makes its money through advertising and is free to consumers; its financial impact on users makes it difficult for regulatory bodies to apply standard monopoly measures (Vesoulis, 2021).

 

References

 

Grabel, S. (2022). This Month In Business History: The Breakup of The Bell System. History Factoryhttps://www.historyfactory.com/insights/this-month-in-business-history-bell-system/

 

Schultz, D. Media Exemption to Antitrust Laws. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1128/media-exemption-to-antitrust-laws

 

Vesoulis, A. (2021) Facebook’s Horrible, No Good Very Bad Week_ And What It Means for Antitrust Reform. Time. https://time.com/6105166/facebook-monopoly-antitrust-reform/

 

Zimniskly, P. (2019). A Brief History of De Beers. https://www.paulzimnisky.com/a-brief-history-of-de-beers

 

 

Blog Post #8: Diffusion of Innovation

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory, developed by E.M. Rogers in 1962, attempts to explain how, over time, an idea or product gains momentum and diffuses or spreads through a specific population or social system. The end result of this diffusion is that people, as part of a social system, adopt a new idea, behavior, or product.   Adoption means a person does something different than what they had previously (i.e., purchase or use a new product, acquire and perform a new behavior, etc.). The key to adoption is that the person must perceive the idea, behavior, or product as new or innovative. It is through this that diffusion is possible. (Diffusion of Innovation)

 

While looking at Netflix through the lens of the Diffusion Theory, the theory can help explain why Netflix became such a success. To begin, the first group of people who tried Netflix are known as innovators. Netflix would mail DVDs to people’s homes. The DVD was a new form of technology, so it may be safe to say those embracing the new technology would be more willing and more likely to take a chance on a new company. 

 

 

In the case of Netflix, the company marketed to the early adopters. At the time, Netflix was an excellent alternative to the classic video store, particularly Blockbuster Video. Blockbuster would charge customers late fees as well as fees if a customer did not rewind the cassette. Additionally, one could receive DVDs via mail which was more convenient than going to the video store. For many going to the video store was viewed as a hassle for various reasons. Additionally, when renting from Blockbuster, the movie needed to be returned the very next day if not, a fine would be imposed. Netflix circumvented this and made it extremely convenient for the customer.  

 

Some people were late adopters due to being skeptical of change. At the time, Netflix was unique, no other company offered what they did. All they knew was that when one wanted to watch a movie on a Friday night, either one went to the movies or rented one from the video store. There was also skepticism about having a movie mailed. More and more people were using Netflix. The company could focus on two items to attract this group. First was the number of monthly subscriptions Netflix obtained. The number would sway a late adopter. Additionally, Netflix's cost remained low. If a person rents one movie a week, joining Netflix costs less. The laggards, the people who were extremely skeptical about Netflix, but their hand was forced. This might have been the group of people who typically did not watch movies and would not find it cost-effective to subscribe. The brick-and-mortar video store began disappearing as Netflix kept taking over the market. At some point, the only alternative to Netflix was not renting a movie at all. 

 

The original version of Netflix, mailing a DVD, had a downside. One had to be strategic about watching movies. If one wanted to watch a movie via Netflix, one needed to plan this out a few days in advance. People needed to allow time for the DVD to be mailed to their homes. While utilizing the local video store or Blockbuster, as long as you lived near one, a person could decide to watch a movie on the spur of the moment. All they needed to do was go to a Blockbuster, rent a movie, and then go home. Once Netflix moved to a streaming service, they made renting a movie even more convenient. One did not even need to leave their home and could, at the spur of the moment, have access to a video.

 

 

When weighing the cost-benefit analysis with new communication technology of technology, time and money would both be considered. The original cost of $9.99 monthly could be less than one spent renting movies from a traditional store. Additionally, one did not need to go to the store to get the video and return it. If one returned the video late, there was an additional cost. 

 

Blog Post #6: Anti War

 

 

 

 The United States government is waging military operations all over the globe, but one would typically never come across writers with strong antiwar voices. There are a few reasons for this. To begin with, there is a saying that history repeats itself. Throughout the history of our country, there have been cases in which speaking out against the government created situations that could be extremely detrimental. Through the Sedition Act of 1798, it was illegal to “print, utter or publish…any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government (Broadwater, 2020). This was the Federalist Party creating laws to punish their critics. The only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers. Prior to the Civil War, “As the sectional tensions over slavery intensified, charges of sedition flew in both directions. Southern slaveholders accused Northerners who opposed slavery of fomenting sedition and insurrection” (Schuessler, 2021). The Sedition Act of 1918 made it illegal to say or write any language that was disloyal to the government, the Constitution, the military, or the flag. A Brief History of Sedition in America

 

In addition to the fears of sedition, throughout American history, there have been other instances of being labeled anti-American. For example, in the 1950s, Senator McCarthy led a campaign against communism. Many of those who spoke out against the American government and popular opinion of the time were labeled Un-American. At the time, if one was publicly labeled this by McCarthy, the person’s life would be ruined. (McCarthyism) 

 

Websites such as Antiwar.com and The American Conservative express stronger opinions about the government than the mainstream media. Why is this the case? The mainstream news outlets have a far and reaching audience. Their product and information are seen and heard by a large majority of American citizens and people worldwide.  If they are too harsh on the government, the administration in power at the time may view them as a political threat. This criticism could prevent the government from carrying out operations and achieving the objectives the government wants. The mainstream news outlets run the potential of being labeled as anti-American if they harshly criticize the United States government. Additionally, there is the fear of retribution or retaliation from the government. There is the fear of the government digging into or conjuring up “dirt” on members of a company or a group who have been publicly critical of the government. The smaller sites do not have such a far-reaching audience; therefore, they do not threaten the government like the mainstream media and do not have to worry about government retribution or retaliation. They do not need to worry until their message is heard and accepted by larger audiences. 

                                                                  References

Broadwater, J. (2020). “One of the Great Bulwarks of Liberty”: James Madison’s Response to the Sedition Act and the Rise of the Press in the Early Republic. Journal of the North Carolina Association of Historians, 28.

Schuessler, J.(2021). Sedition: A Complicated History. New York Times 7 Jan 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/arts/what-are-sedition-charges.html

 

 

 

Blog Post #5: Netflix

The genesis of Netflix is not a glamorous or inspiring story. In fact, one may argue it was formed out of desperation. In 1997, Reed Hastings was the CEO of Pure Atria and Marc Randolph served as the Vice President of Corporate Marketing (Kariuki, 2021). The story goes that the company was facing a looming merger that would put both of them out of work. While carpooling to the office, driving from Santa Cruz to Silicon Valley, the two of them began brainstorming ideas of what to get involved with next. 

There were various ideas, but after hearing about a new piece of technology out of Japan, the DVD, things started to transpire. Realizing this technology would replace the VHS cassette, Hasting and Randolph founded Netflix, a service that for a monthly fee, would mail DVDs to a person’s home. The subscriber could keep the DVD movie for as long as they like without late fees or fines. The original concept of mailing movies to one’s home and not having any late fees was in direct contradiction with the competition, Blockbuster Video. At the time, Blockbuster was the largest video rental chain. By 1999, there were over 6,000 stores, and it was reported that 16% of their profit, or $800 million annually, came in the form of late fees (Zaman, 2022). Within the first year of business, Netflix had over 239,000 subscribers.  In 2007, Netflix launched a video streaming service for its subscribers. In 2012, Netflix debuted Lilyhammer, its first original show, which laid the foundation for the binge-release model. The next year, some of their original content began winning Emmy awards (Clark & Gendron, 2023).  By 2018, Netflix had its first feature-film Oscar winner Icarus. In September 2021, Netflix won more Emmys than any other network or streaming service. Two months later, Netflix launched the first video game around the world. (See The History of Netflix)

 

                                        

Netflix has changed our world more than once. In the beginning, Netflix made entertainment accessible to anyone who could receive mail. For those who could not leave their home or did not have access to a video store they could rely on Netflix for entertainment. Additionally, without late fees, one could hold onto the movie for a longer period of time. Throughout the history of the company, Netflix evolved. The downside to this was Blockbuster went out of business, and this put many people out of work. Ironically, in Netflix’s early stages, Blockbuster had an opportunity to purchase Netflix but declined. (The Story of Netflix) The second area in which Netflix has changed communication is via the streaming service. Through streaming, movies can now go straight to the home. This was an excellent option for many, especially during the pandemic. A family or group of friends does not need to go to the theater to watch a movie. The downside is the local movie theater took a hit. Netflix also played a large role in binge-watching. As much as we enjoy watching a show one episode after another and not needing to watch a show over the course of months, binge-watching also has negative effects as well. Watching too much television can cause depression, mood disturbances and behavior changes, insomnia, and loneliness (Clay, 2017).

The idea for Netflix started during a car ride to work. Initially, it was an answer to the giant video store Blockbuster. Never did the founders imagine how their company would change communication and entertainment. 

References

Clark, T. & Gendron, W. (2023). Netflix is ending its DVD-rental service after 25 years. Business Insider, 18 April 2023. https://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-history-streaming-growth-story-hollywood-disruption-subscribers-2022-6

Clay, J. (2017). Is Netflix bad for you? How binge-watching could hurt your health. USC News. https://news.usc.edu/131981/is-netflix-bad-for-you-how-binge-watching-could-hurt-your-health-amazon-hulu-tv/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20in%20the,hours%20and%208%20minutes%20daily.

Kariuki, P. (2021). How and When Did Netflix Start? A Brief History of the Company. Make Use Of.

Zaman, R. (2022).Netflix Disruptive Innovation-renting to streaming. https://www.the-waves.org/2022/03/15/netflix-disruptive-innovation-renting-to-streaming/

 

Blog Post #4: Freedom of Speech

This is America; love it or leave it is a phrase that has been said throughout our history to those who have questioned the government even when it was unpopular to do so. In Dissent, Injustice and the Meanings of America, Steve Shiffrin argued that the First Amendment protects minority views, no matter how unpopular. The rules and system that have been established protect everyone’s right to disagree with the government, no matter how ridiculous the majority may feel it is. In fact, as citizens, it is our patriotic duty to criticize the government. Throughout our country’s history, dissent has been a driving force for our evolving democracy. In fact, one could argue that dissenters gave birth to our country. Going all the way back to the 1600s, the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock due to religious dissent. Dissenters did not just land in Plymouth. For example, the Quakers laid claim to lands in Pennsylvania, while Catholics found refuge in Maryland. Our nation was formed out of dissent. After the French and Indian War, the British government levied taxes such as the Stamp Act and the Tea Tax to pay off war debt. Disagreeing with these taxes because there was a lack of colonial representation in Parliament, they started to protest, utilizing the power of the press and boycotts. After the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers viewed the power of dissent as important and ensured the passage of the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech, press, and assembly (Shiffrin, 2000). While the government enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, Madison and Jefferson played the role of dissenters. (For a brief history of dissent in America, check out Dissent in America)

 

 

Throughout history, the role of citizen dissenter has moved our country forward. Shiffrin argues that the government should promote dissent because it lies at the core value of freedom of speech. He further claims our major institutions, including the media and Supreme Court, are wrongly limiting dissent. He believes society and the law should change to encourage nonconformity, and in turn, this would strengthen freedom of speech. Shiffrin adds that a dissent-based approach reveals weaknesses in the approaches to free speech taken by postmodernism, Republicanism, deliberative democratic theory, outsider jurisprudence, and liberal theory. To ensure that more voices are heard, he argues, the country should take such steps as making defamation laws more hospitable to criticism of powerful people, loosening the grip of commercial interests on the media, and ensuring that young people are taught the importance of challenging injustice (Shiffrin, 2000).

 

 

 

Currently, protecting the dissent has transformed from the local protester or newspaper to social media. There have been debates regarding “bad” speech or what can or cannot be posted on social media. We see this on both sides of the political aisle. There is criticism of the cancel culture, that if someone says or posts something that is not accepted by the powerful majority as correct, someone will be “canceled.” Being canceled can cause one to become a social pariah and, in some situations, cause one to lose their job or career. For example, a venue in Minneapolis refused to schedule a show with comedian Dave Chappelle over what critics said were transphobic jokes. (See more about The Faces of Cancel Culture).

 

“The stakes are very high in regard to how we answer the question because it is now evident that much of public discourse about public issues has migrated onto this new technology and is likely to continue that course into the future” (Bollinger & Stone, 2022). There have been arguments and discussions about banning outspoken people on Facebook and Twitter. It has been suggested that this is a slippery slope for freedom of speech. Where do we draw the line? Who decides what should be allowed and what should be banned? 

We have seen Facebook come under fire for allowing misinformation to be posted during the last Presidential election as well as issues with posts in Myanmar. (Clark & Kocak, 2019).  We have also seen people use Facebook to organize a revolution in Egypt and Black Lives Matter Protest. (See Facebook and Protest). 

 

Depending upon one’s point of view, a text, a post, or a video can be seen as positive or negative. If we want freedom of speech, we all should have it. This should be freedom of speech as long as we agree with what is being said. As a society, government and those in power should not choose who can and cannot speak up. If this were the case, women would not have the right to vote, the civil rights movement would have never occurred, college students would not have helped end the Vietnam War, and the United States would not exist. Without the dissenter, our country will not move forward. For the good of the country, we need to protect the dissenter.

 

 

Bollinger, L. C., & Stone, G. R. (Eds.). (2022). Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy. Oxford University Press.

 

Clarke, K., & Koçak, K. (2019). Eight years after Egypt’s revolution, here’s what we’ve learned about social media and protest. Washington Post, 25.

 

Shiffrin, S. H. (2000). Dissent, injustice, and the meanings of America. In Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America. Princeton University Press.