Final Post Launch

 

This year, from late August to early October, I learned that there was a different side to all the media and social content that we all consume. Upon hearing some of the information for the first time, I was skeptical and at times doubtful that it was true, but the evidence was there to see in the research. As several uncomfortable truths were slowly uncovered, I realized that my appreciation for this Media Law and Literacy course had grown. Not only has it given me a new perspective on the internet and what could be lurking beneath it, but it's taught me a lot about people as well. Throughout this realization however I asked myself several times; why is this information important? What does it change for me? At the very least, this post will dive into to my newfound answers to these questions.

My relationship with social media has evolved quite a bit since I started using it. I recall my downloaded application being Facebook in 2014. I was a clueless twelve year old middle school boy, who wanted to do nothing but upload pictures of his favorite Transformers action figures and make stop motion short films. I was warned of the dangers very early on by my mother, who repeatedly told me that there are several programs and people on the app with nothing but bad intent. I shortly took it down because of this fear of who could be watching, but it didn't stop me from returning to the social media scene a few years later through Snapchat in 2016. When I first downloaded it, I remembered that from my experience from Facebook that there are several types of users on the app, and I noticed that there were several bots (AI faking itself as human users) attempting to friend me. I found this quite suspicious and interesting, but I did not think much of it due to how easy it was to block or remove these strange automated imposters. Little did I know that this issue would grow even larger on other apps, which I proceeded to download and use more frequently.

The previous paragraph is only serves as an outline for a point that must be made clear. It may be a bit ambitious to say this, but from my interactions with people in the past five years or so, I believe many of us have the same experiences on these applications. In other words we tend to use them to exercise our social muscles, talk to friends, and get updates about what is going on in the world for example. Because we receive all of these benefits, we tend to ignore the bad on the social platforms, no matter how severe it might be. Perhaps temporarily most have not had any consequences, but the ever present danger that exists must be made aware of. This course has opened my eyes about how data can be tracked and how information about you can be sent to people all across the world without consent. This danger allows for a plethora of crimes such as identity theft, fraud, and doxing.

One of the other evil sides of these enormous social networks comes from the people that use it as well of course. A frequent problem that many have experienced, and even myself included, is the ever present evil of cyberbullying. When I was in high school, I gained a few thousand followers through posting jokes about certain animated shows, which gained quite a lot of traction in the cartoon community on that app. While it was great to hear the opinions of several people, there were many who were in complete disagreement with some of my takes and that made them quite frustrated. So much so that they would often times insult my family, race, or even some my other followers. While it personally did not bother me much, I know how much this hatred can affect certain people. One creator in that community ended up committing suicide because of it, which sent shockwaves to everyone one surrounded by the incident. This is one of the many dangerous potentials that displays how hatred can affect people through these platforms, which is why it is important to take breaks from the apps like Instagram and Twitter, and bring more awareness to mental health on them.

I believe that one of the reasons why I enjoyed this course so much was due to the fact that it felt very real. At the age of 20, one of the most relevant things that exist in my life come from technology. Whether it be sports, communication, or even just checking the weather, it is fair to say that I rely on technology quite a lot. I think that while it's natural to be involved in such things due to the way the world is evolving, and that most peoples commitment to these technologies will only grow bigger. However, this course had conditioned me to look at the details that most may ignore, such as the terms and conditions that many tend too skip. In my family, the only one who consistently reads the terms is my father, just in case a time comes when he agrees to something that could potentially be a threat to his democracy. Due to the nature of some of the mechanisms within apps and computers, as I grow older I starting to believe that this precaution's validity is more and more relevant. My family has never quite been skeptical of technology as a whole, but the older people in my family a find it quite difficult to adapt. They prefer to stick to what they know and keep their use of modernized cell phones to a minimum, which in many ways saves them a lot of the trouble someone like me could go through.

The online footprint concept is one that I have thought about quite often in all honesty. I have had multiple social media accounts on different platforms, but only on one had I revealed my identity publicly. In the future, I would not mine if people realized that I was associated with certain accounts that I managed, because I don't have anything to be ashamed of or hide on them. That being said, it was never my intention for that to be the case. I think that the things I have posted will live on in the internet for a very long time, but that's all well and fine if the people consuming the content enjoy it.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize how much this course has raised my awareness to my comfortable technological life. I feel like I have a better understanding of the history and underlying techniques technology uses, which makes me a lot more cautious and aware of the dangers that lurk just beneath our noses.

 

The Privacy, Online and Off

One of society's biggest concerns with technology lies within the fact that it is become almost omnipotent. Whether it be in public, in your own home, or even when you go to order food, there are several technological processes at play that track and record information about you. And without the awareness of ability to know who is monitoring or where this information is going, there is more than enough reason to be concerned about some these facts. Many of the issues discussed in the ted talks made me think about some of the ways these technologies may have more power over my life than I thought they did, bringing a chilling awareness to some of the activities I go through on a daily basis.

One of the ted talks that stuck out to me especially was the one regarding digital tattoos. Knowing that information, photos, and even more that you may not be aware of will be available for centuries to come can be quite a scary fact to face. You would not know that you are committing to something this grand when first creating a twitter or Facebook account, as most social media users tend to think about the immediate rather than the future. In other words, what goes online stays online. Another phrase for this is digital permanence, a way to classify the aforementioned information. Corporations like Facebook have even perpetuated this notion, getting sued for billions of dollars after getting caught selling information to data brokers.

The other issue that the ted talks enlightened me on was government agencies trying to wiretap information through out phones. Due to many technological based organizations like Apple encrypted things like calls, emails, and texts however, many politicians are frustrated that they no longer have access to due to the possible threats that could be lurking. Even if you delete the text or information that you have sent, the issue does not settle there. If the government so desired, they could recover the data that you threw away, even if it comes at a price. The only way to truly get rid of some data, is to reach out to a professional or simply destroy the device. Although resorting to methods this extreme may seem odd, there is little much one can do to keep their digital dialogues hidden from those who desire them.

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what the government should do about some of these issues, due to the fact that there is a danger of being completely ignorant to the digital information that revolves around the public. However, one thing they could work on is being more transparent with the public about what is actually going on, as well as do a better job at ensuring out information is not sold abroad or to corporations that do not have the right to use it. To protect ourselves from privacy invasions, I believe that we can do better at reading the terms we accept when we go to websites or acquire new technology. In addition, we should be more careful of giving our email and phone number when it is requested, especially by suspicious wifi securities or spam messages.

Diffusion of Innovations

 The Diffusion theory that we briefly discussed in class is something that I find quite intriguing for a number of reasons. The first being because its application can be applied to any idea or invention that spans across history, and the other is due to the fact that it can explain and predict several events. Some of the examples that I came across in my research were typically technological based, such as an apple phone, radio, or television network. I'd like to personally continue this trend now that I have a decent understanding of it. This post will analyze the app Snapchat, specifically taking note of its evolution through society and how it's become such a popular development for young adults.

The first piece of the timeline for the Diffusion of Ideas theory are the pioneers, who in this case were college students. It was created by Stanford University students in fact, who created the application in September of 2011. It took inspiration from the theme of Instagram, but wanted to create something much more temporary and natural. One of the biggest reasons why it was adopted by so many adolescents was because they did not want their social media history coming back to haunt them. The perception that deleting something was quite negative in early days of social media, especially at a time where student were told to keep their profiles clean due to jobs being able to find them on a multitude of platforms.

The early majority of the users still remained with in the realm of young adults, but quickly became popular with middle schoolers as well. One of the biggest reasons for this was because it was something new that parents did not know much about and could not track, as opposed to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.  Its short video story feature was followed up by a chat feature, which could also be deleted at will after 24 hours. This helped them gain more acumen in the social media hierarchy, due to the fact that its users could also text alternatively in the app the same way they could normally over the phone. The difference this time however, was that their messages were not being recorded, meaning that even if the chats were discovered by an outside source, they would be taken down relatively soon.

The late majority of this app have evolved it many ways, and added their own innovations to it as well. They can mostly be classified as middle aged, with the intent of creating a space on the app that allows for things like movies and news.Publishers persuaded the app to create a "Dynamic stories" feature, which allows the stories they put online to appear in the form of short videos that play ads in between them. This was a way for them to reach more of a young audience and keep them updated on current events in their preferred short and concise format. 

The laggards are in a similar age bracket as the late adopters, and wanted to incorporate a unique version of the movie industry into the app. However, it was difficult to adapt it into the medium due to the nature of its history. Adapting to the snapchat has been not been very popular for young adults, and has mostly proved worthwhile for those approaching their thirties. TV programming has reached place like NBC and CNN, who have invested more than 500 million into the ambitious project.  NBC actually reported around 30 million viewers, but the number is hard to verify due to the lack of verification of what classifies as a "viewer." Although, their innovation has influenced apps like Facebook to try a similar type of model, which has reaped its own version of success in the social media industry in general in regards to film.

I would classify myself in the early majority category, as someone who has had the app since 2015. The research that I found actually applied to me, and the statistics that I read seemed very realistic. Looking at the app through the diffusion model helped me realize how far the app has come through its success and failures. Retaining its audience is become more difficult as generations pass it on, however there is still the lingering feeling that young adults and below will use it due to its ability to conveniently conceal information.

Age of AI

Society is undergoing a technological revolution, one that has been foreseen and predicted. Samuel Morse, the creator of the telegram in 1844, is also famous for an iconic quote as his words traveled across the country. "What hath God wrought?" A line more then fitting to describe the situation humanity finds itself in almost two centuries later. Technology has plenty of potential for good and protection, but equally enough potential for invasion and destruction. This post will briefly analyze some of the ways in which the advancement of artificial intelligence has become a tool of control, and how the threat of it has high influence on the boundaries of privacy we have, or lack there of.

One of the first things that people working closely in the industry are noticing is that the machines are quite dependable. Not just for gathering information, but general work as well. Some of these jobs include bank telling, phone operation, and even surgical operations. Some are even suggested that robots can take up to 20 million jobs by 2030, as many analysts are noticing specific trends over the past two decades. The Age of AI documentary highlighted the impact this could have on individuals, noting that this would potentially give governing bodies even more power over society. The ability to replace humans from positions that require a high level of attentiveness over things like finance and other personal information with machines gives the companies that own the machines a lot of freedom for experiment, which could include finding out things that are far to personal to be exposed publicly.

One of the other points that I thought the video did a really good job of getting across was that the AI could pose a threat to democracy. Many estimate that there will 150 billion networked measuring sensors, and that amount of data will double by 2025. Mundane items that surround us will be studied as used to understand how we think in feel as voters, and even as people. Because financial transactions are now performed by algorithms, other content related to it is also automatically generated. In other words, other jobs could be taken over by these algorithms, causing several companies to vanish as a consequence. 

EOTO Post Illusory Truth Effect

 During the second and final round of EOTO presentations, the topic of the illusory truth effect intrigued me. Because of the fact that we live an age where information is filtered and manipulated before it reaches its intended audience, I thought it would be worthwhile to explore how people could be so vulnerable to false information. I found the psychological aspects to be quite scary, but felt much more informed after reading over it works online.

The illusory truth effect is most commonly defined as when we hear a false piece of information so much that we slowly begin to believe that it is real. This deliberate technique can be used in ways to comfort people when they are dealing with something difficult, but also as a way to conflict society by spreading lies. In this world, truth and things that occur often are usually put under the same bracket. This means that people tend to combine fluency with truthfulness, no matter how significant or vast the lie. It is the exact reason why people tend too easily believe the lies spread by politicians, due to the fact that the propaganda that is being pushed is said so frequently and highlighted in the media.

The effect also heavily relies on the bias that people generally tend to have due to the way society has evolved. Things like social media, political party association, and even the concept of celebrities has created so many situations in which people can invest loyalty into something that spreads information to them constantly. Of course because of the increase of information that one can receive, the more likely that information is to be processed and shared for different purposes. If a piece of news media tends to be fake, but it aligns with the bias that you have built up over a number of years, you most likely will believe it without question or doing research. In a society that is so polluted with these sorts of biases, the illusory truth effect is practically immortalized.

To examine its actual effects, one can separate the model into two categories. The individual and the systematic, which are as much related as they are different. The individual believes that they are well informed and far from being susceptible to misinformation. They might think twice about a false claim they see on social media, but the more they are exposed to it, the more they began to think twice about whether it is true or not. The more they consider it, the more likely they will eventually think it is correct. On the systematic side, such as global campaigns that are run by bad actors, gatekeepers are aware that all they need to do is invent an interesting lie or story to gain traction. This means that today especially, it is more difficult to come across true information from major media outlets who are associated with these campaigns.

To conclude this brief post, the illusory truth effect has been one of the biggest reasons as to why there is so much conflicting information regarding simple news stories. It is nearly impossible to rid society of it at this point, but there are ways to realize when it is in play if you have properly done your research. I found this topic to be interesting because agenda setting and gate keeping theory were so heavily linked to it, and now realize that information scandal is a much more serious thing I thought.

Gatekeeping and Agenda Setting

Have you ever noticed any specific commonalities between medias that serve as news outlets? Or a difference between the ways that they explain certain events? The reasons may shock you if you dig deep enough, but there is a short and simple way to confirm that why the merit of the aforementioned questions. Gatekeeping, and agenda setting. These are the two methods through which news medias show you what they want you to see, and let you hear what they want you to hear. Politics, ethics, social spectrum, and culture are all controlled by the power of story, and emotion. Which is exactly why specific techniques are used when powerful information is presented to the mass.

To explain in better detail, I'd like to start by defining the two terms. Gatekeeping conceptually is when a person, or corporation decides what news should and should not move past them. Agenda setting is the idea that mass media sets a standard of information that people should care about. You may have already noticed, but both of these theories could really be bracketed in the same family. Agenda setting begins with a real event occurring, through which the news processes it and feeds it to the public. The way they present it, whether that be the positive or negative language, influences whether or not the public have a positive or negative reaction to that news. That then leads to the public having an agenda on the      topic that they were presented, creating their perception of that piece of news. 

To tackle the issue from a different angle, we can explore that two levels of the theory that make it click. The first level is called priming, which is when the media gives importance to an event to convince them that certain news is important. The next is framing, which is how people are attached to the news they are consuming. This can be through production technique, language like mentioned previously, or even timing. Nevertheless, it is a deliberate attempt to convince the public to believe certain narratives which can build or destroy the reputations of places or people.

Gatekeeping can be described as the grandfather of agenda setting, preluding and playing a key role in the concept. Gatekeepers establish a hierarchy which decides how the social system works, by ensuring that the public only hear certain piece of a larger story. This creates a specific value for news that people expect. A model of how this works can briefly be described. Gatekeepers take note of a major event that has occurred, then polish into a media agenda which is presented to the public. Selections of stories that involve real people with an experience of that event get highlighted, but only if they suit the agenda that the gatekeepers want to run. That then goes into a policy agenda, in which the government reacts to the publics desires after they have had time to digest the event.

Both of these models must be taken into consideration when viewing any type of news from mass media corporations, due to the danger of brainwashing. It is easy to fall into the trap of agenda setting depending on your political views, which could blind you to the bigger picture and cause you to do lazy research. American society today highlights things such as the war between Ukraine and Russia, but pays little attention to the conflicts that have been occurring in the middle east for decades. This is because media has a bias, which gears politicians to take advantage of the public agenda that has been set and make promises to fix certain things the certain things that the media is highlighting. I don't see this sort of calculated manipulation of news ending anytime soon, but what we can do as citizens is research and take note of the way some journalist, media outlets, and politicians react too topics and see through them with a discerning eye.

 

EOTO Presentation Carrier Pigeon

 Through each one of the fantastic presentations regarding media, I thought the most interesting piece of research was related to the carrier pigeons. It was a topic that I had never given much thought to, but upon hearing it spoken about and explored in detail, I find it's concept rather intriguing. Going all the way back to ancient Roman times and even to WWII, I think it's importance is rather lost in history. This small post will briefly touch on some of the interesting information that I found, and emphasize the points that were made during the presentations. 

The first recorded message bearing pigeons was set free by Noah. All the way back in the B.C days, they were used in chariot races for the Romans, and it was typically a privilege for the rich who could afford them. They would take the birds to certain locations where they are attached with certain messages. Most believe that because of their strong sense of magnetic awareness and smell, they naturally find their way back to their nest. Also, the ones who set them free would place food at their destination and at their home, typically being able to fly round trips that would be around 100 miles.

In much more recent time, specifically the 19th century, pigeons were used during the siege of Paris during the 1870-71 period. During war time, troops were told to be suspicious of birds due to the fact that they were becoming a way to trade messages and send secrets. However due to the fact that they were such a common bird to see in the sky, it was difficult to distinguish whether a bird was carrying something or not, which is exactly what made this mode of communication so tactically reliable.

Of course, due to the advancement of technology that is much more reliable, the use of the carrier pigeon has gone extinct. The last messaging service ended in 2006, called Orissa Police Carrier, located in India. The next year, the smartphone released, with years previous devices like the radio, computer, and even telephone lines being much quicker ways to communicate. They still remain a large part of our history of communication, and shows how far we've come from relying on the labor of animals for something that is so simple today.